Cisco outage

Martin Hannigan wrote:

Can someone please indirectly email Mr. Oquendo and advise him that we
would like to have a word with him? He seems to have blocked Google
and has made us unable to have a chat.

Blocked Google? Strange I got this message. But since you wanted to
direct this back to the list when I responded to you, let me level
the playing ground and post my direct response to you. Since after
all I did follow procedures and leave it off the list.

// BEGIN

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:50:24 -0600
From: "J. Oquendo" <sil@infiltrated.net>
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com>
Cc: admins@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cisco outage
Message-ID: <20071126235024.GA39489@infiltrated.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Martin Hannigan wrote:

We don't mind seeing reports on important parts of the overall
critical infrastructure being impacted, but we could probably do
without the off-topic remark that seems to be inaccurate as well. This

I've made four posts in about three months... Is this a targeted
"shut up" http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/

In the future, please help us to make sure NANOG is operational by
being on topic -- and accurate -- wherenever posting.

The link was/is relevant, comment is just a comment. Should I in
turn complain about someone's signatures? Take a look at my four
posts. Their comments and their all relevant to someone else's
comment as are everyone's comments and responses.

How many posts have I made? 12 in seven months...
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/index2.html

CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news

So much for self healing networks eh

Something personal you have to say, say it. But bitching and
whining about me being off topic according to your personal
taste and you'd have a hell of a lot of bitching to do about
a hell of alot of other people.

// END

Hopefully, this won't bounce like our private message did. We'll be
forced to throw him off the list, sadly.

Now to be on topic, you state I bounced mail from Gmail?
Why didn't you include the SMTP error, I'd be curious to see
where I blocked it to correct it.

sudo grep -i hanni /var/log/maillog
Nov 27 00:01:14 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: D5BB73F420: from=<hannigan@gmail.com>, size=2582, nrcpt=1 (queue active)

Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Can someone please indirectly email Mr. Oquendo and advise him that we
> would like to have a word with him? He seems to have blocked Google
> and has made us unable to have a chat.

Blocked Google? Strange I got this message. But since you wanted to
direct this back to the list when I responded to you, let me level
the playing ground and post my direct response to you. Since after
all I did follow procedures and leave it off the list.

I received the following message when I responded to your complaint
related to my first note, which you opted to post to the list.

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

     sil@infiltrated.net

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client
host [209.85.198.190] blocked using ubl.unsubscore.com; Sender has
sent to LashBack Unsubscribe Probe accounts

Let me repost my response to your complaint, which it appears you may
not have gotten:

--begin

We do have people "bitching" when they are asked to be more on-topic,
much like people bitch when they get speeding tickets. They seem to
"slow down" after our requests and are remarkably on topic.

    4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination,
         and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited.

    6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited.

We could take a drive down Warning St. if you like, but we prefer to
point out things without warnings and suggest voluntary compliance
instead of arm twisting with warnings. It's your choice, not ours.

--end

Let me reiterate that my motivation was my interpretation of your
conduct on the list previously as being fairly non contributory and
combative, as demonstrated above. It's certainly ok for you to
disagree. I welcome it so that we can attempt to make the list better.
That does not mean that you are correct.

Your belief that my interpretation is incorrect, and open for debate,
is noted and will be taken up with a higher power at a later date.

Best Regards,

Martin Hannigan
NANOG MLC Member