Pete sent me private mail on Wednesday first saying wanted to discuss, and then saying he didn't want to discuss SMTP AUTH. That is why I cc'd him on my discussion with John. Today Pete sent me private mail saying one can't trust headers besides your own. I sent Pete private mail back, pointing out the invalidity of his assertion. Obviously, you can trust other headers, and you can identify forged headers. Pete and John's assertion otherwise is wrong. Given that John sent me two previous messages, and avoided direct questions on experience tracking abusers, but included generally his resume involving standards, I think I have been setup on the issue of his experience catching abusers. They protest too much. I note that in the final (of 3) private response where John *finally* reveals his experiences tracking abusers, he *still* avoids the issue of cost associated with his experiences. He doesn't indicate when "his ISP days" were. This all could have been avoided if John had substantiated his experiences in the first place instead sending his resume about standards body experiences, and other experiences, as I correctly noted, that were irrelevant. It all seems to be a diversion from the question of relevance. John still haven't answered those questions, but has been very upset by being pressed for details to backup his assertions about the expense and difficulty of tracking abusers. My experience has been that once Law Enforcement is involved, this is a relatively easy and cheap task. Even if John's experiences were that it was difficult and expensive at some time in the past, it doesn't mean that it is today. --Dean On Fri, 30 May 2003, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 5/30/03 at 6:24 PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: > > >So far, you haven't sent anything (despite a very impressive resume) > >that seems to be relevant experience in tracking abusers. > > For some reason, Dean decided to start Cc'ing his private mail > conversation with John to me (I'm not sure exactly why), but because > of that, I was privy to the e-mail in question and can't let the > above statement pass. > > Dean's above statement is patently false. John did provide (for > Dean's reference, in message <152050487.1054196854@p3.JCK.COM>) > absolutely relevant experience in tracking abusers in the mail to > which he refers. > > Given the large number of other false statements and invalid > arguments in Dean's messages to this list, both on issues of > substance and with regard to his personal attacks on John, I have > decided not to engage with Dean publicly, though I have sent him > private mail pointing out at least one of his invalid arguments. I > suggest others might also benefit from subjecting Dean's messages to > careful scrutiny; I have found them lacking in factual information > and quite misleading. > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com> > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 >