Re: Pirate Bay Block

Re: Pirate Bay Block

Yeah, I agree with you and Martin: the Internet routes around failures, and this
is clearly a failure.

I was wondering if some operators wanted to share how they are going to try to
resolve the order from the court. 

Yesterday my ISP at home was simply blocking the source IP address. DNS was
fine.
This morning, everything seems to be back to normal.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dyer [mailto:steve@...]
> Sent: 30 April 2012 22:16
> To: adrian@...
> Cc: uknof@...
> Subject: Re: [uknof] Pirate Bay Block
> 
> On 30/04/2012 21:52, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > It's very quiet here on the subject.
> >
> > What news?
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> Everyone is perhaps struck dumb by the realisation that, after over
> twenty years experience of the public internet, courts and law-makers
> still haven't realised that this won't work.
> Where is King Canute when you need him?
> 
> Steve

Re: Pirate Bay Block

How long before TTB starts to use fast flux ...

Sent from my iPad

On 1 May 2012, at 09:00, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@...> wrote:

> Yeah, I agree with you and Martin: the Internet routes around failures, and this
> is clearly a failure.
> 
> I was wondering if some operators wanted to share how they are going to try to
> resolve the order from the court. 
> 
> Yesterday my ISP at home was simply blocking the source IP address. DNS was
> fine.
> This morning, everything seems to be back to normal.
> 
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve Dyer [mailto:steve@...]
>> Sent: 30 April 2012 22:16
>> To: adrian@...
>> Cc: uknof@...
>> Subject: Re: [uknof] Pirate Bay Block
>> 
>> On 30/04/2012 21:52, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> It's very quiet here on the subject.
>>> 
>>> What news?
>>> 
>>> Adrian
>>> 
>> Everyone is perhaps struck dumb by the realisation that, after over
>> twenty years experience of the public internet, courts and law-makers
>> still haven't realised that this won't work.
>> Where is King Canute when you need him?
>> 
>> Steve
> 
> 
> 

Re: Pirate Bay Block

On 01/05/2012 09:00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Yeah, I agree with you and Martin: the Internet routes around failures, and this
> is clearly a failure.
>
> I was wondering if some operators wanted to share how they are going to try to
> resolve the order from the court.
The order from the original court said that including the site in 
"Cleanfeed" was sufficient to have actioned it. Cleanfeed, the Judge 
knew, was trivial to circumvent, so he made the order in the knowledge 
that it wouldn't actually work.

Only the named ISP's have to do something. All other ISP's would be wise 
to do nothing until they receive a court order naming them. To just 
block the site might make them liable to lawsuits from their customers 
alleging illegal interception of their communications.

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), but anyone dabbling in this field should 
consult one.

IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not applied on 
UKNOF?

Steve

Bottom posting

> IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not applied on UKNOF?

Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am bottom posting), Modern clients organising
mails by discussion/thread and hiding the part of the text already present in the previous mails in the
thread make top posting easier to read than bottom posting and interleaved comments.

Thomas

Re: Bottom posting

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Mangin
<thomas.mangin@...> wrote:
>> IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not applied on UKNOF?
>
> Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am bottom posting), Modern clients organising
mails by discussion/thread and hiding the part of the text already present in the previous mails in the
thread make top posting easier to read than bottom posting and interleaved comments.

A. Because it breaks the logical order of conversation.
Q. Why is top posting bad?

-n

Re: Bottom posting

On 1 May 2012, at 09:37, Thomas Mangin wrote:

>> IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not applied on UKNOF?
> 
> Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am bottom posting), Modern clients organising
mails by discussion/thread and hiding the part of the text already present in the previous mails in the
thread make top posting easier to read than bottom posting and interleaved comments.

Steve asked why ... I gave him an answer most people in corporate, non-technical environment are very happy
with their Microsoft / Apple mail client ... and see no issue with top posting.
I let you search the archive to see if I top or bottom post ...

Thomas

PS: please excuse the bottom post from my iPad, I can not be bothered with it  :p
NB: the list was too quiet, I am pleased to see that it is still so easy to get people all fired up :D

Re: Bottom posting

On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:36:36 +0100
Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@...> wrote:

> NB: the list was too quiet, I am pleased to see that it is still so easy to get people all fired up :D

welcome to the internet.

d.

Re: Bottom posting

<head above parapet>

At 10:03 01/05/2012, William Anderson wrote:
>On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Mangin
><thomas.mangin@...> wrote:
> >> IAABP (I Am A Bottom Poster - is this internet standard not 
> applied on UKNOF?
> >
> > Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am 
> bottom posting), Modern clients organising mails by 
> discussion/thread and hiding the part of the text already present 
> in the previous mails in the thread make top posting easier to read 
> than bottom posting and interleaved comments.

I find that often the top posting clients hide (snip out) parts of 
the text or earlier conversation to which the top post refers, 
requiring a visit back to the original sender's email.

>A. Because it breaks the logical order of conversation.

It does indeed and that is why I like interleaved replies. Maybe old 
fashioned, but many of non-techy acquaintances using top posting have 
commented on how easy it is to follow a conversation using 
interleaved, especially when there are several matters to be 
addressed in a response. I was shown the interleaved reply many years 
ago by a very influential Internet person. It has stuck, for good or bad.

>Q. Why is top posting bad?

See above. Ipso facto, my case rests.

No flamewar intended - just my tuppence worth.

</head above parapet> (ducking....)

Nic 

Re: Bottom posting

On 1 May 2012 09:37, Thomas Mangin
<thomas.mangin@...> wrote:
> Assuming you are not trying to start a flamewar (hence why I am bottom posting),
> Modern clients organising mails by discussion/thread and hiding the part of the
> text already present in the previous mails in the thread make top posting easier
> to read than bottom posting and interleaved comments.

I'm really rather annoyed by the modern trend towards hiding
previously seen text. It makes it hard to determine what exactly is
being replied to unless you unhide it, and if you have to unhide it to
make sense of it, then why is it hidden in the first place? The
assumption that text will be hidden also gives rise to people not
bothering to trim their responses, so when you do have to unhide text
you end up with a giant mess to read through.

--

-- 
Maria Blackmore
Professional Network Fairy