Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 14:05:29 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Conduct Unbecoming a Core Team Member Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010203135311.048983c0@localhost>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
For several weeks now, a Core Team member whom I don't know personally -- one Peter Wemm -- appears to be engaging in a practice somewhere between spamming and mail bombing. Each time I post a message to any mailing list to which he happens to subscribes (including not only several FreeBSD lists but also some others), an autoresponder sends a copy of it back to me with a rude message plus reams of headers attached. (An example appears below.) It seems to me that this conduct is certainly a breach of Netiquette and certainly unbecoming for a Core Team member. While Mr. Wemm may not want to read anything I write, it seems to me that automatically dumping copies of it back in my mailbox -- with a nasty message prepended -- is not only network abuse but a mild form of harassment. I'm quite capable of rigging the server to trash any message received from him, but unlike Mr. Wemm I don't believe in "tuning out" anyone -- even someone whom I dislike. He or she might, after all, have something valuable or insightful to say. In any event, I obviously cannot reach this person to complain about his breach of Netiquette and network abuse, because his server is configured to reject it. (Yes, I could resort to a "throwaway" mail account or some other ruse, but this would be descending to his level.) Could someone here -- perhaps some of the Core Team members -- contact Mr. Wemm and ask him to stop? His conduct sets a bad example within an organization that supposedly takes pride in having mature attitudes toward both software design and project management. --Brett Glass >Return-Path: <nobody@netplex.com.au> >Received: from mobile.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) > by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22288 > for <brett@lariat.org>; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:27:20 -0700 (MST) >Received: (from peter@localhost) > by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f13IRJA45090 > for brett@lariat.org; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:27:19 -0800 (PST) > (envelope-from nobody@netplex.com.au) >Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:27:19 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <200102031827.f13IRJA45090@mobile.wemm.org> >X-Authentication-Warning: mobile.wemm.org: peter set sender to nobody@netplex.com.au using -f >From: goaway@wemm.org >To: brett@lariat.org >Subject: your email was received and ignored >X-UIDL: 612df898587d7ec765dfb375c786ee85 > >In case you dont get it, please go away and stop filling my mailbox! >Your ignored email is appended below and being returned unread: >--- >>From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 3 10:27:18 2001 >Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f13IRIW45081 > for <peter@localhost>; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:27:18 -0800 (PST) > (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) >Received: from cvs.netplex.com.au [10.0.0.1] > by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.5.3) > for peter@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:27:18 -0800 (PST) >Received: by peter3.wemm.org (mbox peter) > (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sat Feb 3 10:27:18 2001) >X-From_: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 3 10:26:15 2001 >Received: from spam.netplex.com.au (root@spam.netplex.com.au [203.38.44.162]) > by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f13IQ8G98763 > for <peter@wemm.org>; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:26:09 -0800 (PST) > (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) >Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) > by spam.netplex.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05673 > for <peter@wemm.org>; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:26:02 +0800 (WST) > (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) >Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) > by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP > id 075176E2A34; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:25:56 -0800 (PST) >Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 538) > id 8D61E37B491; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:25:55 -0800 (PST) >Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP > id 80EF02E81BA; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:25:55 -0800 (PST) >Received: by hub.freebsd.org (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:25:55 -0800 >Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org >Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) > by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1D237B4EC > for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:25:37 -0800 (PST) >Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) > by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22248; > Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:23:54 -0700 (MST) >Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010203110403.048e78e0@localhost> >X-Sender: brett@localhost >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 >Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:23:44 -0700 >To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, > Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> >From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> >Subject: UNIX-like approach to software and system architecture (Was: D > J Bernstein) >Cc: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG >In-Reply-To: <20010203135902.M94275@lpt.ens.fr> >References: <200102022245.PAA15968@usr08.primenet.com> > <20010202140505.B91552@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> > <200102022245.PAA15968@usr08.primenet.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG >X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Precedence: bulk > >At 05:59 AM 2/3/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > >>I admit I'm no expert in programming: but his approach to security >>seems to be an innovation already, like using small independent programs >>running under their own non-root UIDs, and minimising the number and >>power of suid programs needed. Looks obvious, but why didn't >>sendmail and bind get there first? > >Because, even though they grew out of the Berkeley environment, their >authors somehow missed the wise lesson of UNIX: Unless there's a >compelling need to make things monolithic, small, simple building >blocks that can be combined in multiple ways are best. Bernstein's >methodology is UNIX-like, whereas the Sendmail and BIND approaches >are similar to what we used to see in mainframe apps. Bernstein's >dns and mail daemons and smtpd/smtpfwdd are examples of a more >UNIX-like approach to system architecture. So, ironically, is >BeOS, which has a very small kernel surrounded by a layer of >privileged processes. Even the file system and device drivers are >walled off in this way. (Admittedly, one motivation for doing the >device drivers in this manner was licensing issues -- they wanted to >take advantage of the vast number of Linux device drivers but skirt >the nastiness of the GPL, which would have required them to reveal >all of their source code if they'd put the drivers in the kernel >itself. But it is a good choice architecturally, too, so long as >you have fast IPC. QNX is somewhat similar.) > >Apache and the Linux kernel take an approach similar to that >of Windows. Both are big blobs, but they're blobs that build >themselves at load time from a collection of modules that aren't >particularly autonomous. For better or for worse, FreeBSD's kernel >is going in the same direction. The "blob which grows by >accretion" approach has yielded mixed results in the past; >Apache is solid, but Windows is an undebuggable nightmare. >It still remains to be seen how FreeBSD will do. > >--Brett > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010203135311.048983c0>