Adam McKenna [u] wrote on 26/09/2004 22:57:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 08:38:26PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:Thomas Bushnell BSG [u] wrote on 24/09/2004 18:31:Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:There are many ways for one to determine whether an IP address is dynamicallyor statically assigned. If you want to know more, do some research. Read NANOG-L or inet-access-L. It's all outside the scope of this list.Geez, you keep saying this. Surely if there are many ways you could give me just one? I really do know, I really have done the research; I've been using and programming IP for twenty years. So this is, from an expect, a put-up-or-shut-up demand. If you know a single reliable method, say it now.In case anybody else would wonder:Adam did _not_ mean anything like actual remote detection of wether an IP address was assigned by DHCP, but rather those DUL-(black)lists and/or certain name parts in the address's PTR record.I never claimed that a person could do it with 100% accuracy, nor that a program could do it.
I never claimed that you said anything like that either. Where did I say anything about 100% accuracy in my post?
> I also did *not* claim that using a DUL is one of the
ways I was speaking of, either.
You refered to Marco d'Itri's posts, which where speaking of exactly that: (citing Adam McKenna) "Marco d'Itri already answered that question on the list." (citing Marco d'Itri) "Very good ISPs report dynamic pools themselves to the DULs.Good ISPs mark dynamically-assigned addresses in the whois database or in the rDNS." Which was the only post of Marco coming close to explaining how to determine wether a given IP is assigned dynamically.
> Unless you're a complete fuckwit and didn't
read Marco d'Itri's posts, you would already know this.
I don't know who the fuckwit is, honestly. You deliberately chose to let the discussion become even more emotional by not rectifying the misunderstand/misinterpretation of your post by Thomas Bushnell. Since this kept coming back up, I chose to summarize what you said to me in private email.
If I got you wrong, tell us so, but there is no need to insult anyone.
Really, very smart (not) of him not to rectify this misunderstanding here on the list.I don't remember asking you to post anything to this list on my behalf. I consider this to be extremely rude. Please don't contact me again.
I wasn't posting on your behalf. If I did, I would have quoted your words from our private email correspondence, which would indeed be rude. All I tried to do is rectify that misunderstanding/misinterpretation of your post, to keep this thread from becoming even more emotional.
I might have made a mistake by my post, but you are acting quite childish refusing to say anything concrete and thereby rectify a misunderstanding (I don't think it was a deliberate misinterpretation as you do), which was sure to keep the thread alife, OT and quite emotional. Would you have explained you post once instead of repeatedly saying "read nanog-l" or "Marco d'Itri already explained that", all of this wouldn't have happened.
And I also find it quite interesting that you make it sound like my summary was wrong (and making you appear in a bad light) and yet Thomas Bushnell reports that the explanations he received via private email accurately matched my summary.
regards, Sven