Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Tue Mar 15 21:19:01 UTC 2005

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:56:15 CST, Robert Bonomi said:
> If they aren't competent to do the job, they shouldn't *have* the job.
> If management doesn't know what all the job requirements are, that is
> managements failing, and they _deserve_ the consequences thereof. <wry grin>

To misquote Randy: "I encourage my competitors to choose managers that way." ;)

The fact is that there's a *lot* of clue-deficient people in those jobs.

> Beg to differ.  "textbook perfect" self-regulation means that when the list
> starts returning excessive numbers of false positives, that 'practically
> everybody' _stops_using_it_. And in fairly short order. 

The fact that so many people get caught and surprised when it goes to 100%
false positives indicates that they'd likely have had *no clue* what was wrong
if the false positive rate was down in to 5% to 10% range.  Remember that your
analysis is leaving out the fact that a lot of these people *are* clueless and
subscribe to "wave a dead chicken 3 times, sacrifice money to Redmond, and
reboot and hope that things have miraculously changed, even with no actual
change of configuration"...

If it *actually* worked right, why do I *ever* encounter people that don't even
know what block lists they're using?

Because enough people running networks are idiots.  Why do these network even stay
in business?

Because their competitors are often equally mercifully free of the ravages
of intelligence....
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list