[47951] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Francis)
Sun May 19 04:00:13 2002
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 00:55:56 -0700
From: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
To: "Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020519075556.GC70173@darkuncle.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>,
"Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020519034621.1DC88AE@proven.weird.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:46:21PM -0400, woods@weird.com said:
> [ On Saturday, May 18, 2002 at 20:15:10 (-0700), Scott Francis wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: "portscans" (was Re: Arbor Networks DoS defense product)
> >
> > Apologies; my finger was a bit too quick on the 'g'. As this message ca=
me to
> > the list, I will assume it is safe to cc the list on my reply. Sorry ab=
out
> > that last.
>=20
> Apology accepted, but I strongly recommend you learn to use some more
> reliable mail reader software -- something that doesn't accidentally
> invent reply addresses! There was no hint that my message to you was in
> any way associated with the NANOG list -- it was delivered directly to
> you and CC'd only to the person you were responding to. Some outside
> influence had to have associated it with having been a reply to a list
> posting and connected your desire to reply with inclusion of the list
> submission address. According to your reply's headers you're using
> Mutt-1.3.25i, and according to the Mutt manual 'g' is the group-reply
> command. I don't find any hint in the description of that command to
> indicate that it will magically associate a given message with a list,
> especially one that was not received from the list. Even the
> 'list-reply' command should not be able to associate a private reply
> with the list address. If Mutt really does magically associate private
> replies with list addresses by some mysterious mechanism then it's even
> more broken than I suspected.....
It doesn't. I cc'd the list because I thought the message to be germaine to
the public thread, and no mention was made of the message being private. Th=
at
was a misstep on my part, for which I apologize, and that was what I meant =
by
"a little too quick on the 'g'". I will in the future assume all replies not
cc'd to the list to be private, or else get permission before cc'ing the li=
st
on a reply.
Mea culpa.
--=20
Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org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=5qje
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--O3RTKUHj+75w1tg5--
