Don't feed the trolls

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Don't feed the trolls
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:46:00 +0300 (EEST)
In-reply-to: <03b101c65475$898e9ed0$f159fea9@ssprunk>
List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: Message from "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> of"Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:54:49 +0200." <725521173.20060328205449@atkielski.com><200603282355.k2SNtI5W017213@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><157494584.20060329061500@atkielski.com><Pine.LNX.4.58.0603290818520.32345@sleibrand-ibm.acs.internap.com><1785036977.20060329204501@atkielski.com><1E0A111E-F816-4E9A-9F9C-411E8A087429@muada.com> <109561690.20060330062648@atkielski.com> <03b101c65475$898e9ed0$f159fea9@ssprunk>

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Thus spake "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

..

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Feeding trolls is not very useful.. please at least keep him in Cc: so I don't have to see the messages.. :-)

I've yet to see Anthony make any useful contribution to the IETF (various rants on the IETF list don't count).

Perhaps we should just ban him from the list.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Thomas Narten
- Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Scott Leibrand
- Re: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Anthony G. Atkielski
- Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)
  - From: Stephen Sprunk

Prev by Date: Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was:
Next by Date: Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was:
Previous by thread: Re: 128 bits should be enough for everyone, was: IPv6 vs. Stupid NAT tricks: false dichotomy? (Was: Re: StupidNAT tricks and how to stop them.)
Next by thread: Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Don't feed the trolls

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.