|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive
Kradorex Xeron wrote: Oh, one more thing to the first reply to this thread calling this a non-operational issue, Gadi's in the right here: It IS an operational issue that's getting reposted because it's NOT getting solved.I recieved 4 emails (from Fergie, Suresh, Colin Johnson and "Kradorex Xeron") disagreeing with my assertion that Gadi's emails are off-topic. I also recieved a few emails saying things like "Sure he's off-topic, but he's a well-known botnet researcher, and a very smart guy, and don't you think you're being too hard on him?" and one saying in essence "Who are you to question a highly respected guy like Gadi?" The 4 people who feel that Gadi's botnet posts are on-topic here in NANOG-L have apparently not read the NANOG-L charter and FAQ so I am providing links here: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html I agree that Gadi is a highly respected botnet researcher, and I'm just a lowly netadmin at a regional ISP. Shouldn't I just shut up and soak up his glory? If this were a botnet list, yes. But this is a network operator's list, and I'm a network operator. There are lists where botnets are discussed, and Gadi is very active on those lists. There is no need for him to repost his botnet emails to NANOG-L. I don't join the botnet lists and spam them with networking issues, and it's not appropriate for Gadi to spam NANOG-L with botnet crap, regardless of how highly respected he is in his field. 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, 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.
|