I haven't repeatedly (or at all) defamed anyone. You haven't answered the question. The answer you gave was irrelevant to the question, and doesn't support your wrong assertion that open relays allow one to send anonymous email without the IP address of the sender. I think that I am the one being defamed, since you repeated question my credibility while avoiding the question. And I also would like to initiate a formal complaint. You should answer the question, and quit complaining that you are being put in the spot to answer it. --Dean On Fri, 30 May 2003, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Friday, 30 May, 2003 14:09 -0400 Dean Anderson > <dean@av8.com> wrote: > > >... > > And John has obviously never been involved in a Law > > Enforcement request. But I have. Private emails to him seem > > to confirm this, or at least he didn't indicate anything to > > the contrary. While he may have been working on SMTP > > protocols for 30 years, he obviously hasn't been involved in > > trackig abuse of various sorts, and has no idea of whether > > this is expensive or difficult. > > Dean, private emails to me didn't raise the issue of Law > Enforcement requests, so, no I "didn't indicate anything to the > contrary (I note that I didn't "indicate to the contrary" about > eating babies three times a week either). But, yes, I've been > involved in them, as well as in very small group discussions > with FBI personnel about what is and is not feasible to request > and monitor. More important, some of those private exchanges > explained to you, in some detail (even by my normally > long-winded standards), about my involvement in abuse handling > and tracing at front-line, management, and training levels, as > well as my involvement in very large scale email provisioning > and operation. I also, fairly patiently, explained to you that > I had been involved in a number of standardization efforts > --both policy-level and in the trenches-- quite different from > SMTP, and about my involvement in those and other areas on the > development, deployment, operational, and procurement sides as > well as standards development. > > I'm not insulted, because I've been around the IETF and other > areas long enough to have developed a pretty thick skin about > this sort of stuff. But I wish you would stop repeating this > (to use your term) nonsense about what I do and don't know and > have and haven't done. It is, at best, a waste of everyone > else's time. > > Indeed, I think it has gone on about long enough. Harald, of > whomever is responsible for the IETF list, Dean has repeatedly > attempted to defame my character and experience, despite (and > after) having been supplied ample detail to refute his claims, > assumptions, and accusations (I will supply copies of the > relevant correspondence to you on request). That is against the > rules for the IETF list as I understand them. Would you please > initiate the appropriate action to formally warn him and, if the > practice persists, suspend posting rights? > > john > > >