Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive

Tue May 15 21:01:55 UTC 2007

> Addressing the complaint that my response to Gadi was too harsh, I can
> only say
> that, to someone who isn't aware of the history, my response may seem
> harsh, 

I *AM* aware of the history and your response seems harsh. Especially so
because you complained about a message which was about exploits in CPE
access routers, not botnets. Any kind of router vulnerability/exploit is
on topic for NANOG. And people who don't take the trouble to read
messages and critique the message content, should not post to the list
at all. We don't need you using NANOG to fight your personal flamewar
with Gadi.

>but
> anyone who has seen the endless trolling of NANOG-L, the numerous
requests
> (public and private) asking Gadi to cut it out, the extensive
discussions
> on
> IRC, in private email and elsewhere will understand that the
forcefulness
> of my
> request is appropriate given the fact that all previous attempts to
end
> this
> needless disruption of NANOG-L have been ineffective.

Well, since I have some knowledge of these communications and the fact
that a number of people have thanked Gadi for his work and urged him to
continue posting to the NANOG list from time to time, I do *NOT*
understand the forcefulness of your request.

The fact is that there are two sides to this story, and that the 8000 or
so NANOG members are somewhat divided on the issue. But one thing is
clear, messages like yours are not useful to any of the list members,
but many of Gadi's messages *ARE* useful to some of the list members. In
a group of 8000 people, I expect the best anyone can hope for is that
most of the messages on the list will be useful to some of the list
members.

If that isn't good enough for you, there is a mailing list committee and
a steering committee that you can complain to, but privately please, not
on the list.

--Michael Dillon