Phishing and BGP Blackholing

Mark Foster blakjak at blakjak.net
Wed Jan 3 20:26:00 UTC 2007



On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
>> So why the big deal?
>
> Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
> email marked up with HTML.  Because it's an unprovoked threat.  Because
> it's an attempt to unilaterally shove an unenforceable contract down
> the throats of everyone reading it.  Because it's a tip-off that the
> sender does not value the time or resources of recipients.  Because it's
> insulting.  Because (borrowing from first link below) it's simply too
> stupid for words.
>

I'm as much of a netiquette-fiend as almost anyone i've ever met, but I do 
feel that there is a tendency to spend far too much time complaining about 
perceived rudeness and not enough time with focus on the point behind the 
message.

No matter how hard you try, top-posting is here to stay. MS Outlook has 
seen to that.  So instead of taking the extreme approach (top posting = 
bad) I favour a compromise approach (inconsistent posting = bad; 
multiple responses to multiple individual points from a single email in a 
top post = bad) - which I like to think is more driven by commonsense than 
the need to exert ones old-school-ness on the rest of the populace.   I 
can't be the only one...

I don't like disclaimers either.  Theres a reason I use a privately 
managed mail system for contributing ot mailing lists, and not my 
corporate address (which, yes, gets a multiline legal disclaimer added to 
every post that leaves...)

But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice 
there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO.  Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums 
to messages  are both things that an end-user in a COE corporate environment has little control 
over.

Mark.



More information about the NANOG mailing list