Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?)

[Paul Ferguson]

At 03:23 AM 04/29/2000 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:

>I was obviously joking about the "disinformation experts" comment,
>at least to some degree.

That's semi-comforting, at least. ;-)

>However, I certainly do agree that it's a good idea to discuss
>this as you propose at the upcoming NANOG, especially in lieu 
>of recent occurrences.  

That is good to know _- I knew you'd agree! :-)

>I don't believe some folks realize how much people read into 
>topics discussed on this list, or understand the impact that 
>seemingly simple posts (accusations about Vendor A's broken 
>software, Vendor B's broken hardware, ISP A's broken network, 
>ISP B's poor customer service, ISP C's security practices, 
>etc..) have on these businesses, and more so, the individuals 
>involved, especially since those accusations are often 
>[demonstrated] premature or completely unfounded.

Yes, this is entirely counter-productive.

Not that I'm a money-grubbing, stock-sucking bastard, but speaking
as a member of the "community", I'm a little spooked by how reckless
journalism, and off-hand comments on mailing lists, affect peoples
(read: companies) financial futures (this is actually just the tip
of the proverbial iceberg).

If things/people/processes/architecture/etc. is at fault, then let's
discuss it as a community that wishes to propel ourselves into the
promising future. Otherwise, let's just demonize everyone whow learns
their lesson the old fashioned way -- with failures.

I'm really pissed off over this whole issue.

- paul