Adam McKenna [u] wrote on 26/09/2004 22:57:

> On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 08:38:26PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> 
>
> I never claimed that a person could do it with 100% accuracy, nor that a
> program could do it.

I never claimed that you said anything like that either. Where did I say
anything about 100% accuracy in my post?

> I also did *not* claim that using a DUL is one of the
> ways I was speaking of, either.

You refered to Marco d'Itri's posts, which where speaking of exactly
that: (citing Adam McKenna) "Marco d'Itri already answered that question
on the list."
(citing Marco d'Itri) "Very good ISPs report dynamic pools themselves to
the DULs.Good ISPs mark dynamically-assigned addresses in the whois
database or in the rDNS."
Which was the only post of Marco coming close to explaining how to
determine wether a given IP is assigned dynamically.

> Unless you're a complete XXXXwit and didn't
> read Marco d'Itri's posts, you would already know this.

I don't know who the XXXXwit is, honestly. You deliberately chose to let
the discussion become even more emotional by not rectifying the
misunderstand/misinterpretation of your post by Thomas Bushnell. Since
this kept coming back up, I chose to summarize what you said to me in
private email.

If I got you wrong, tell us so, but there is no need to insult anyone.
 
>
> I don't remember asking you to post anything to this list on my behalf.  I
> consider this to be extremely rude.  Please don't contact me again.

I wasn't posting on your behalf. If I did, I would have quoted your
words from our private email correspondence, which would indeed be rude.
All I tried to do is rectify that misunderstanding/misinterpretation of
your post, to keep this thread from becoming even more emotional.

I might have made a mistake by my post, but you are acting quite
childish refusing to say anything concrete and thereby rectify a
misunderstanding (I don't think it was a deliberate  misinterpretation
as you do), which was sure to keep the thread alife, OT and quite
emotional. Would you have explained you post once instead of repeatedly
saying "read nanog-l" or "Marco d'Itri already explained that", all of
this wouldn't have happened.

And I also find it quite interesting that you make it sound like my
summary was wrong (and making you appear in a bad light) and yet Thomas
Bushnell reports that the explanations he received via private email
accurately matched my summary.

regards,
Sven


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.or
g

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]