Re: Dishonest Forks? | Was - Re: [Namedroppers-honest] Brian Smith asks: Who is Dean Anderson?

On 10 Mar 2010, Andrew Richards wrote:

> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 18:19:50 Dean Anderson wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Kevin wrote:
> > > On Mar 9, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> ...
> > As usual, Day's account is completely dishonest. In fact, we engaged in
> > a series of on-list and off-list emails, in which I discredited Day's
> > "discovery" and proposed changes as enabling a birthday attack.
> 
> I don't think so: People on the list at the time ended up completely 
> bamboozled by your weird and twisting circular arguments: You didn't 
> discredit Day or anyone else, you just confused the hell out of people. 
> When you saw that your technical arguments didn't stand up you shifted to 
> more personal attacks. It really does seem like you're hooked on conspiracy 
> theories and creating FUD.

Well, other people see it differently.  My math worked out; my math had
a credible source (the CRC Handbook on Cryptography).  Day's math didn't
work out, and he just made it up.  Day and Kaminsky have been outed as
frauds. Even MIT's Technology Review reports that Kaminsky didn't
discover anything. It was all a scam to get people to switch to OpenDNS.  
The second effort was to introduce weakness into DJBDNS.  Day and
Kaminsky et al (Dempsky) won't take accountability for the "Mark
Johnson" sock puppet purveying their "changes". I think responsible
people know who is credible and who is not.

> I also see you've been banned from the IETF and DNSEXT lists for being
> offensive,
> 	http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38293.html
> e.g.
> 	"Mr Anderson has repeatedly posted, before and since,
> 	 on these and other IETF lists, messages that refer
> 	 offensively to individuals or organizations"

Well, I've also been vindicated in each of my statements that were
"offensive".  I won that battle; the consensus agreed with me:
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.html

The contents of message you cite were false, fraudulent statements. The
message (PR-action charges) is in fact the work of Vixie cartel, for the
benefit of the Vixie cartel.  Kaminsky, Day and Dempsky are connected to
the Vixie cartel, so this is hardly an independent statement.

Of course, the IETF (via Vixie cartel) did much the same thing to Dr.  
Bernstein, so I'm in good company.

But I've been vindicated and validated in each and every claim that was
at issue:

1.  RFC 3979 was the patent policy of the IETF (Steven Bellovin lied and 
said it wasn't; the Vixie cartel was trying to get patented standards by 
the IETF for their profit)

2.  Stateful Anycast is unstable. I explained why in theory.  Actual 
testing has proven me right. Even people who explain how to setup 
Anycast are careful to say that Anycast is not stable for stateful 
protocols like TCP. (The Vixie Cartel sells stateful Anycast services)

3. The criticisms of Strahm, Strunk et al were validated.  These were
cronies of the Vixie cartel, asserting that root server operators didn't
have to follow any rules. (the vixie cartel sells changes to root
services without testing for stability first)

4.  DNSEXT was flawed. I've explained a number of flaws. Some have been
confirmed by independent parties.  (Vixie cartel sells DNSEXT)




But if you were genuinely concerned with offensive language, then take
some of these into account: http://www.iadl.org/vixie/index.html

I especially like this one, where Vixie says the IETF is made of
"self-selected rabble and trolls"
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg25874.html

> Maybe we can get back to talking about genuine DNS issues and leave the 
> conspiracy theories, incomprehensible arguments and attacks on people's 
> reputations behind. Besides insulting those who do lots of good work on 
> djbdns and related packages it wastes everybody's time.

Yeah, I noticed the false and unfactual attacks on my reputation.  This
is a //effort// to discredtit me. Of course, it has been going on for at
least 10 years, and has failed. Over the long time, the effort doubly
credits me: I am vindicated on the facts I asserted, and they are
//discredited// by the failed challenges on the facts and on my
integrity.

By contrast, I post //facts// relating to the reputation of others.  
Facts actually do discredit people and reputation.


> I must stop feeding the troll...
> 
> Andrew.
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494