Re: Frank Carmickle and Marco Paganini must die
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 05:36:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So, since I cannot post them, I will summarize the upshot.
>
> While in public he insisted that one could distinguish reliable
> between a dynamic and a static address
And I still say that one can. Marco d'Itri already posted a summary of such
methods. To his list, I would add "common sense". Maybe this isn't accurate
enough for you, but it is accurate enough for the maintainers of DNSBL's, and
the people who use them. If you disagree, your beef is with them, not me.
>, privately Adam quickly and
> happily conceded that in fact this is not possible,
I sure as hell didn't. What I said was that you were an annoying fuck,
I never really said that in the first place, and that it was irrelevant to
my arguments anyway. Are you really this stupid, or are you deliberately
lying in order to bait me into responding?
> He did not insist on his definition that "dynamic" means "obtained by
> DHCP".
I never said the definition of dynamic was "assigned by DHCP". I said that I
would consider an address that is assigned by DHCP to be dynamic, even if it
was configured to be the same every time. That's not the same thing. On
the other hand, I thought you weren't interested in arguing semantics. I
guess that was also a lie.
> He said that he was not talking about university or corporate sites,
> but he did not give any indication about how one is to reliably tell
> that one is dealing with such a site. (Asking the ISP excepted, of
> course.)
I never excluded asking the ISP from the methods available. Nonetheless,
there are other methods, as MD pointed out.
> Aside from being extremely rude and insulting in his first message, he
> was polite and concise, entirely reasonable on all counts, in his
> private email to me. He seems to me (this is only a guess) to be
> extraordinarily unwilling to admit his mistakes in a public forum,
> which doesn't matter much to me.
As I said earlier, I did not want to have the discussion in this forum
because it was not related to Debian development. There are no 'mistakes' to
admit, since most of my posts were my opinions, and everything else that I
actually said (not what you ascribed to me) cannot reasonably be held to be
factually incorrect.
> I am distressed that he denies what he said privately. If he
> persists, then I will put his email messages on a public www server so
> that those who are interested (if there is anyone left) can read them
> at leisure. I suspect he is afraid that people will read them and
> learn for themselves whether he says different things publicly and
> privately.
Please quote to me the part of my private correspondence where I say that
probing a DNSBL is a way to determine remotely whether an IP address is
assigned by DHCP, as Sven and you have claimed.
In fact, go ahead and post the entirety of my private correspondence with
you, that way everyone can see what a liar you are.
> Unlike the usual practice, however, I was interested that it is his
> private messages which were clear and helpful and led to
> understanding; it was his public messages which (to my eyes) are
> consistently overbearing and unreasonable. I can only guess about why
> he wants to keep this a secret.
I'm not trying to keep anything a secret. I have already stated that I feel
that this is offtopic and I don't wish to pollute this list any further with
it. The thread should have ended with MD's post, since he answered your
question. Unfortunately, you can't seem to let it go, so I am forced to
respond yet again.
Now stop needling me, you prick, and stop treating the Debian lists as if
they were your own private debate club. Some people have work to do.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: