On Thu, Feb 19, 1998 at 10:26:35PM -0700, Jack Rickard wrote:
> Time is rather proving me right on the spam issue. But it is quite
> incendiary to some of the little tin gods who so desperately want some
> control over a world that has changed and they now ill understand. It's
> not the topic here in any event.
Oh really? Time is proving that you have the right to dictate to private
businesses what they can and cannot do regarding acceptable use policies -
which, by the way, grant and refuse access to equipment..... whether by
robot or human?
Let's see, there's only about a dozen lawsuits that have now wound their way
through the courts that say otherwise. Names like AOL and CompuServe, to
name two, who have managed to get court orders banning the *abuse* of their
mail servers by spammers.
You're simply wrong, and until you pay for the hardware onto which you wish
to send the email, you have ZERO RIGHTS in regards to the policies set by
the owners. None at all.
That's how private property works, even though you seem to not understand it.
Since you're so certain of your right to spam (that is, consume other's
resources without their consent) I'm sure you won't mind posting in public
your credit card and bank account numbers, along with blanket authorizations
for their use by anyone who feels the need. After all, you don't have the
right to control the use of your own resources, do you?
Or are you a simple hypocrite along with everything else?
> Mr. Denninger hung a rather wide series of assumptions, theories, and
> bombast out rather widely on the fact that none of the POPS dialed used a
> particular vendor's equipment. As the crook upon which he hung this
> ridiculous series of claims would appear not to be true, he's rather left
> flapping in embarrassment. Both Livingston and Ascend central site
> equipment were somewhat inevitably dialed in the test of course, although
> this is of little interest to me at this point, and not the direction of
> the test.
It *SHOULD BE* the direction of the test. In a multivendor environment it
is simply irresponsible to claim that a protocol does or does not work
without noting the hardware and firmware revision in use ON BOTH ENDS.
In a single vendor environment it is, of course, far less important.
X2 is a single-vendor environment, and always has been.
K56Flex (not K56) is a multivendor environment. By omitting this information,
you are simply and bluntly misleading people.
Not that you seem to care.
> And so he leaps from one preposterously unsupportable position to the next
> in a free fall of childish tantrum.
And you just can't stick to the point, can you? Personal attacks are the
last bastion of someone who *has no point to make*. Thank you for proving,
once again, that you are incapable of actually discussing the issue and your
distortion of it.
> The test, which he has no knowledge of
> beyond what he's heard, had very little to do with the hardware dialed
> into. We were doing call completion testing.
The issue has EVERYTHING to do with the equipment being dialed into, and its
firmware revisions. To state or imply otherwise is to flat-out misrepresent
the truth.
Call completion requires equipment on BOTH ENDS that can speak to one
another reliably. Change EITHER end, and the results change. That's a
fact Jack.
> As it so happens, some
> particularly odd results came out of it with regards to the modem
> technology, and we have noted it as honestly as we can.
You have failed to produce documentation substantiating that you were
testing anything, on a statistically valid basis, than one vendor's
implementation. Given my knowledge of the vendors invovled in these
things, including ~10GB of connection log data from those vendors going
back more than two years, I *KNOW* what the truth is on this matter.
You don't, and what's worse, you don't seem to care.
> As Rockwell, 3COM,
> Livingston, and Ascend are all advertisers (well they were anyway) I think
> we can make the case that Mr. Denninger's latest accusation is pretty well
> airless as well.
You know, I was in California not long ago. I called a half-dozen UUNET
POPs (which were being resold to an outfit that had national reach) from my
hotel - with my K56Flex modem. Not one connection would stay up for more
than 10 minutes, throughput was horrible, average connect rates were
~24kbps - or worse, and about 20% of the time I didn't get sync'd at all.
Then, sitting in the same hotel, I dialed 2400 miles across the country back
into a PM3. Guess what? I got a nice solid 44000 connection which I
maintained for over three hours at a crack.
Now, same hardware on my end, same phone switch, same local service. If
anything the long-distance call should have been worse. But it *wasn't*.
Why? Hmmmm... don't know, but guess what - UUNET is standardized on ASCEND
TNTs and MAXs. Was that responsible? I don't honestly know, but what I
*DO* know is that to say that "K56Flex sucks" without KNOWING AND REPORTING
WHAT I WAS CALLING INTO ON THE OTHER END would be irresponsible beyond words.
> Most amazing is Mr. Denninger's note that this "article" makes the National
> Enquirer look like investigative reporting. This is simply amazing.
Its also true.
> But the article is in the March
> issue which is at the printer and won't be published for another ten days.
Your people published it - did they not?
> He hasn't seen a word of it. Let's not go into his literary credentials.
> He's just publicly avowed his qualified opinion of a piece of writing he
> can't possibly have ever seen.
Oh, so you leaked KNOWN FALSE material ahead of publication? You are now
disavowing the original message which started this thread? How very
interesting....
> This is a bit like kicking cripples and it's leaving a bad taste in my
> mouth. Karl, go get someone who 1. knows something and 2. can express it
> with sufficient logic and grammar to make this a fair fight, or back out.
> If you're not embarrassing yourself, you ARE embarrassing me for you.
More personal attacks. No surprise Rickard.
> for smaller ISPs to deal with and I'm generally classed as an admirer, not
> a detractor, of their efforts and equipment. But from my point of view,
> they got dragged down an alley and pantsed by Rockwell, not by me.
You forgot something - Livingston/Lucent uses Lucent chipsets and code.
Not Rockwell's. In fact, the early rockwell code won't talk to the Lucent
hardware at PCM speeds.
This is the problem with painting with a brush when you don't know what's
on it. You simply haven't done the research Jack.
> We dialed a bunch of national ISPs (ok, 145,000 times but who's counting)
> to see how well they answered the phone and to rationalize some of the now
> apparently real complaints dialup customers have had. But some of the
> ISP's in the study have paid a penalty, not only in connect speed, but in
> call completion rates, based on the technology camp they fell into, with
> nothing but marketing claims to base their decision on.
No. Some ISPs have paid a penalty in connect speed and completion rates
based on the *VENDOR* they purchased from and/or the *FIRMWARE* they are
running in their equipment.
As someone who has *first hand* experience with some of those vendors and
their problems, I *know* this to be true. I also *know and can prove* that
the generalization of your "trouble" to the *PROTOCOL* rather than the
*VENDOR* is false, misleading, and Lucent ought to treat it as trade
libel - because in my opinion it *IS* precisely that.
> Karl, move on. You're a grown man and your panic in public is nauseating.
I have no "panic" going on. You're the one who is nauseating Jack, and
frankly, you don't know jack. Go back to the BBS world where the kiddies
play and nothing of consequence is ever accomplished.
Fight-O-Net suits your brand of "reporting".
I'm the first one to raise hell when someone sells crap to me or others
that I deal with. You, among others, should know this. But I'm an equal
opportunity hell-raiser - if you start disseminating bullshit, you're
going to find it coming right back in your face. I've been at this game
since '81. I don't buy from people who can't deliver what they promise,
and I *do* raise hell with all comers who want to deceive and defraud the
general public and network community.
I will compile and post those stats. They'll make for quite the fodder for
use by Lucent when you publish your nice (false and misleading) article.
I'm sure many other ISPs can come to the general assistance of Lucent in
this matter as well, as most of us *DO* keep those records around.
> Jack Rickard
>
> PS. For what it's worth, I don't mind at all your forwarding this to a
> public forum. They probably will, but I don't. I rarely say anything in
> private e-mail that I would mind having read more widely, and never to
> anyone of male gender.
I don't give a damn if you care or not. You send it to me, and it contains
the kind of drek that you included, and it gets posted.
People who have 4-letter vocabularies cease to have their right to private
communication with me when they shove profanities in my face.
I've said what I have to say, and I'm done. Enjoy talking to yourself.
---- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost--DbXVdCdHGoSgWSkg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNO0dH2goheYQGclFAQF+pAP/XZPUhjkP5j52wgCxfvLU/xmD/tMmpn4f atfJQLLJd7rnNLKD/FND/E/p54nZrBDCYX0/CXzyIvwlvPL037Hdc3/6SS4N2dcJ nXSijvmvK6TtXnlBkL2soeVSZ6ZXc/gyhDEXKRYXCjNdnUZwCgtzqDv2td/jzKI7 CA88Rvlo77Q= =iV26 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--DbXVdCdHGoSgWSkg-- - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>