Subject: Re: email@example.com filtering
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/01/2002 11:06:29
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 04:30:28PM +0900, email@example.com wrote:
> > i do understand the battle happened in the past, but i believe it is
> > time to move on.
> i mean, the moderation thingy has to stop. both project has to
> communicate normally. "normally" here mean two things:
> - no secret moderation on netbsd side - if there's moderation, the
> policy has to be public. or there should be no moderation.
It has been no secret that we have filtered _all_ postings of Theo's from
all of our lists for many years, as has FreeBSD. There are several reasons
for this, and they are copiously documented both in old traffic on our lists
and FreeBSD's, and on Usenet. I won't discuss them all here.
In respect for Theo's and your seemingly new spirit of cooperation in fixing
security holes in all BSD operating systems together, several relevant
messages from Theo were passed to the tech-security list last week, over the
objection of a large number of NetBSD developers. Unfortunately, it soon
became obvious (to this developer, at least) that this was a mistake; Theo
clearly still harbors great antipathy towards NetBSD and appears to still
have the principal goal, when posting to our lists, of making vituperative
attacks (e.g. his "Who lost China?!" message wildly accusing us of
deliberately leaking security information) on NetBSD developers and the
project, and thus making our lists highly unpleasant for the NetBSD
Ultimately, they are the *NetBSD* mailing lists -- not the "make
Theo and Itojun feel good about working together" mailing lists. Past
history made it abundantly clear that allowing Theo to post makes our lists
unpleasant to the point of uselessness. Present history makes it clear that
this is probably still the case. I'm talking about uselessness *for NetBSD
users and developers*. And again, they're the *NetBSD* mailing lists; so it
does not seem like a very good idea to me to allow them to be drowned in more
wild accusations, manipulative half-truths, grandstanding for the peanut
gallery, and abusive conduct just to make you personally feel good.
> (moderation against spam is another issue so let's not go there)
> - no considered-to-be-threat words from theo. theo, please pick
> words more carefully, or old netbsd folks scream and blame me/you.
It's amazing to me the degree to which you can deceive yourself, Itojun.
"please pick words more carefully"? Read Theo's last message in this thread
carefully, please. He *directly* states that if he doesn't get what he wants
(the ability to post to our lists without any filtering) he will withhold
information about shared security vulnerabilities. Of course, that's a
threat; in the simplest terms, it is "do what I want or I will let bad things
happen to you". It is blackmail. It is unethical. It is childish. It is,
to be succinct, typical behaviour for Theo DeRaadt. That you could think
otherwise leaves me seriously questioning your judgement.