[30630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The last thing I'm gonna say about IRC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry R. Linneweh)
Sun Aug 20 18:03:37 2000
Message-ID: <39A054A2.36F2AC3C@concentric.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 14:58:58 -0700
From: "Henry R. Linneweh" <linneweh@concentric.net>
Reply-To: linneweh@concentric.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
'Chanserv decreases nothing' and IRC has long been abandoned
by most packetpoopbuttwarriorkiddies, now its networks, 'ISP's'
competing with each other for customer share in a failing market
place.
Shawn McMahon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2000 at 10:43:10AM -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> > > Hence, if all the IRC networks would implement Chanserv, and educate users,
> > > these attacks would decrease.
> >
> > Actually, then they get directed at the services, their
> > upstream hubs, etc. Trust me on this. As long as IRC is running
> > in some way, shape, or form, you have a very big bullseye placed
> > on your network.
>
> I did say "decrease" not "stop entirely".
>
> Every argument I'm getting thrown back at me is arguing against the latter,
> instead of what I actually said.
>
> If even one person doesn't attack because he can't take over the channel,
> and brief service interruption doesn't cut the mustard for him, then using
> Chanserv was a good tool, and that's the only claim I made.
>
> If you want to argue that the attacks won't decrease, fine; but everybody
> please stop telling me that they won't cease, because I KNOW THAT ALREADY.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
--
Thank you;
|--------------------------------|
| Thinking is a learned process. |
| ICANN member @large |
| Gigabit over IP, ieee 802.17 |
|--------------------------------|
Henry R. Linneweh
