Subj : 1:10/345 To : David Calafrancesco From : Michael Grant Date : Thu Dec 06 2001 03:28 pm Hello David. 06 Dec 01 21:24, you wrote to me: MG>> You allude that Richard is untrustworthy because his uplink is MG>> untrustworthy. A clear ASSumption of guilt by association, which MG>> smears Richard's name. DC> By no means. He is certainly entitled to connect with whomever he DC> approves. I don't approve of editing of in-transit file traffic for DC> any reason. Not even for spam? What if suddenly, say one or two of the W32 file echos started getting spammed with *.JPG's of pornographic pictures? Wouldn't those linked to that file echo complain about that spamming? Wouldn't they request that their uplink do something about it? Would you as a hub refuse to do anything to prevent your downlinks from recieving those files, if they had asked you directly to do something about it? You hatched a routelist into an echo not meant for routelists; that constitutes spam, plain and simple. Downlinks complained about it, and the hub acted on those complaints. You were asked to make a new fileecho in order to distribute it, you refused. You left the hub no alternative but to move it out of that fileecho because he cared about the concerns of his downlinks. I do not consider the removal of spam at the request of one's downlinks as an indictible offence. A hub's first concern is, after all, supposed to be for the wishes of his downlinks. Besides which, that hub is still distributing your file for you, despite you demonizing him. DC> I won't place myself in a position where someone who has DC> done that has access to the files I receive. I believe I speak DC> for most of my fellow hubs when I say that none of us will DC> knowingly place ourselves in that position ever again. It DC> frankly wouldn't matter if Richard were to find a clean DC> unadulterated version of a fileecho as I don't wish to wonder DC> whether any other fileecho is being similarly DC> modified by the hub I don't wish to receive files through. You create a situation out of your own stubborness and refusal to cooperate with others in this network, forcing a hub to do something like this in order to accomodate the wishes of his downlinks, then you appoint yourselves his judge, jury and executioner; summarily finding him guilty for something you yourselves forced upon him... Man, the Taliban could learn a thing or two from you lot. DC> Is that clear enough? I am not ashamed to call modifying DC> in-transit traffic a bad nasty thing. Period. I also don't care DC> who doesn't care about that practice enough to change their DC> feeds. I understand there are a few "bad nasty" skeletons in your closet as well... Because of that, should no one should ever trust one such as yourself again? Maybe because of that, all hubs should avoid /you/ like you have the plague? How does that shoe feel on the other foot, David? DC> I however do care. I therefor will change where _I_ get my DC> traffic should it become necessary to satisfy my own sense of DC> what is right and wrong. Every other operator has their own DC> criteria for what is right or wrong. And when someone says that a Z1B hub is doing something wrong, he must be silenced at the end of a link cut threat? Boy, you're doing a /great/ job convincing me that your views fall into that "right" category... MG>> What I'm attempting to do is wake you all up to the fact that MG>> just because a hub is connected to another hub, it doesn't mean MG>> that hub thinks the same as the other hub. Suppose you link to MG>> Richard and you have a concern about one particular file echo. If MG>> you raise this concern to Richard, who's to say he won't seek out MG>> an alternative link for that one file echo in order to alleviate MG>> your concerns? DC> It doesn't matter if Richard thinks the same or not. In this DC> particular case, the traffic has passed through a hub that has shown a DC> prediliction for altering in-transit files. Period. I don't know or DC> care if the hub has ceased that practice or confined it to a single DC> fileecho. I am not willing to lend even my silent support to the DC> practice by accepting files that have passed through that hub while DC> there are any other options available. In fact, we are willing to DC> accept a slower more problematic file source than to lend silent DC> support to the practice of altering in-transit traffic. But no, you /weren't/ willing to accept a slower, more problematic file source; you hopped up and down and screamed bloody blue murder because your /demand/ to recieve your files from the /top/ weren't accomodated. You cast aspirations of conspiracy on the head of the Filegate because of a simple request to move your file source to a lower hub. MG>> But no, you'd all much rather lump whole groups of hubs into MG>> one big pile of those which you deem "untrustworthy"... It's MG>> this same sort of thinking that caused Brenda Donovan to be MG>> treated so unfairly by the then RC12. DC> Not whole groups of hubs. I believe there were only three who were DC> doing the editing. The hub you speak of accepted the practice and DC> stayed connected to his uplink. My fellow hubs reconnected to a hub DC> that didn't alter traffic. DC> As for the R12 thing... it was explained in here a few days ago that DC> there had been some proven extraneous connections to their private DC> echo and as a result it was removed from wide distribution and placed DC> on specific hubs as needed. It affected /one/ echo; an echo that Region 12 shouldn't have been using a Zone-wide backbone system to distribute in the first place. Concern over /one/ echo justifies dropping an /entire/ echomail feed of over 500 echos from a hub? DC> In the process of making some new connections, some nodes DC> changed their primary echo feeds. This resulted in some nodes no DC> longer connecting to some hubs for echo traffic. I fail to see DC> where that was a problem or even a practice that was encouraged DC> to discredit any hub. The "practice" was an attempt to discredit /all/ NAB hubs as untrustworthy; by making a concerted effort to cut all links with NAB hubs feeding echomail into Region 12 in favor of Z1B hubs. What made it worse was the fact that it was the RC12 who cut Brenda Donovan off; and he did so without trying to resolve the issue with her first. He could very easily have made a simple request of Brenda to cut herself off from that one echo, and to not recieve it from anyone else, and she would have accomodated that wish, and R12's regional echo's security would have been assured without having to drop an entire echomail feed. It was purely a political move and nothing more; it had nothing to do with that echo's security, and it was clearly designed to send a message to all members of Region 12; that /no/ NAB hubs were to be trusted. The odd thing about it is, back when R12 members first started suspecting that others were reading their echo, they knew Bob Seaborn was connected to the echo. Had they at that point simply asked Bob to disconnect himself from that echo, he would have accomodated that request. If they truly cared about their echo's security at that point, they would have done that very thing; instead they kept that echo connected to Bob's system /deliberately/, so that they could use it as a weapon against the NAB. It seems that "getting" the NAB is a lot more important to R12 than their regional echo's security is... --- * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11) .