Not so Nice Net

[Jeff Moore <mail () JEFFMOORE COM>]

Michael - Sorry If I myself came across negatively. I completely understand
being passionate about such things. It just speaks to how much you love
what you do. I can certainly appreciate that. I may have misinterpreted
your email just as you did mine. Sorry for that Michael. I do tend to get a
little passionate myself when I feel that peoples openness and
communication is being criticized in a public arena. I really feel that
everyone has something to offer and when we make folks feel wrong or
criticize them in front of others they will probably be less likely to
comment and share their experiences the next time. I would think it would
be better to ask those folks to clarify(even in a 1 to 1 email) if you
think they have said something incorrect instead of approaching it vocally
to the whole group. I felt that I understood everyones comments quite well.
But perhaps I should have clarified things. I am sorry if I didn't do that.
And now that I understand how sensitive you are about that and how
important it is to you to communicate the appropriate info I will certainly
do my best to make sure to do that.

Sorry Don't mean to create a flame war. And I am sorry to bother everyone
elses time with this. Any further communications on this I will make sure
will be private and not be to the entire group. I probably should have done
that to begin with.

My apologies all!

Jeff M


On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Michael Sinatra <
michael () rancid berkeley edu> wrote:

> On 02/10/12 12:21, Jeff Moore wrote:
>
> > First - Thank you all for responding to my question. It has made it
> > clear that what we were seeing was not crazy but that you all have been
> > seeing similar things. Thanks everyone!!
> >
> > Second - Michael Sinatra - I am assuming you must have read this on a
> > bad day. I am sorry for any problems you are having. From what I have
> > read from folks on this thread I assume that folks are quite intelligent
> > and that none of them assume that the internet is still classful. It is
> > simply a way that they communicate. Perhaps it is my mistake for how I
> > phrased the question. My apologies if that was the case.
>
> I wasn't reading it on a bad day, but I have had many many bad days caused
> by very good and talented security professionals assuming that netblocks
> were divided on octet boundaries.  That being said, let me state in as
> friendly and constructive way as can be inferred in email: It is much
> better to be as precise as possible when discussing issues regarding
> malicious activities.  I don't feel that "91.x.x.x" is very precise for the
> same reasons Marty outlined.  It may be a useful shortcut for some, but
> just as I should be cognizant of how others will interpret my
> admittedly-too-emphatic message, so should everyone here. It is very easy
> to misinterpret what was being said on this thread with respect to the
> exact netblocks and providers that are at issue and that is of concern to
> me.
>
>
>  I think that
> > these intelligent professionals also have the courtesy not to yell and
> > not to try to make others looks or feel bad. In your case it looks as
> > though my assumptions were incorrect.
>
> The use of capitalization was intended for emphasis and not to make others
> look or feel bad, and it was definitely not to simulate yelling--I
> apologize for that; I should have used a different mechanism for emphasis.
>  You'll notice that I didn't respond directly to anyone (including you) in
> this thread, but instead wanted to make an emphatic reminder to the whole
> community to be careful and precise when you communicate regarding
> netblocks.  I did paraphrase my own misinterpretation of your text, which
> is unfortunate.  Sorry about that.
>
>
>  I am not a member of this group to
> > get into arguments over semantics with folks that have no respect for
> > their peers. If you read my message and the other kind folks that
> > replied you would see that we did not say we got scanned by every host
> > in these ranges. Please take the time to read the messages that you are
> > responding to. I think folks here understand the consequences of
> > blocking entire ranges. Its their job.
>
> You're correct on that one.  I did misread your message.  I now see that
> you were saying that all of the traffic you have seen in 91.0.0.0/8 has
> been bad.  I sincerely apologize for that.  Given that, it would be useful
> to have more information as to exactly which providers in that block seem
> to be especially problematic, or which IP addresses (or classless ranges)
> appear to be the biggest problem.  I don't think the legitimate users and
> providers who happen to be assigned parts of 91.0.0.0/8 appreciate being
> painted with a broad brush.
>
> Realizing that people in this community don't like being painted with a
> broad brush, I will also take your criticism to heart.
>
> cheers,
> michael



-- 
Jeff Moore
Desk (503) 877-4707 <https://www.google.com/voice?pli=1#phones>
Cell (503) 9 <https://www.google.com/voice?pli=1#phones>10-0756
Mail () JeffMoore com




-- 
Jeff Moore
Desk (503) 877-4707 <https://www.google.com/voice?pli=1#phones>
Cell (503) 9 <https://www.google.com/voice?pli=1#phones>10-0756
Mail () JeffMoore com