Subject: Complaint from John Klensin against Dean Anderson

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:45:52 +0200

In mail to the IETF list on May 30, 15:04 -0400, John Klensin said:

> Indeed, I think it has gone on about long enough.  Harald, of whomever is
> responsible for the IETF list, Dean has repeatedly attempted to defame my
> character and experience, despite (and after) having been supplied ample
> detail to refute his claims, assumptions, and accusations (I will supply
> copies of the relevant correspondence to you on request).  That is
> against the rules for the IETF list as I understand them.  Would you
> please initiate the appropriate action to formally warn him and, if the
> practice persists, suspend posting rights?

In mail to the IETF list on May 30, 16:01 -0400, Dean Anderson said:

> I think that I am the one being defamed, since you repeated question my
> credibility while avoiding the question.
>
> And I also would like to initiate a formal complaint.

The IETF list charter, RFC 3005, says:

   Inappropriate postings include:

    - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
    - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical concerns
    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

Looking at the log of messages from Dean Anderson (yes, I have looked at 
all 64 that were sent by him this month):

- The first message by Dean Anderson that appears to be a reply to John 
Klensin appears on May 27, 20:15 -0400. It basically disputes John's claims 
about how email works.

- In his message on May 27, 22:40 -0400, he says:

> I think the same about you. It seems this will go nowhere. I'm just trying
> to be polite. You've offered absolutely nothing of substance in this
> -long- message.
....

> That is not the goal of open, standards compliant systems.  The fact is
> that these clients are compliant with standards in effect.  If you don't
> understand that, then you have no place in a standards organization, like
> the IETF.
.....

> This is just nonsense.  Obviously, you have no operational experience.

- In his message on May 29, 22:02 -0400, he says:

> Some people seem to think that having invented or significantly
> contributed to something means that the inventor is immune to criticism.
> That is called a personality cult. Personality cults usually have few
> useful contributions, because they distract the personality.  Maybe that
> is what happened to John with SMTP AUTH. I don't know.

- In his message on May 30, 14:09 -0400, he says:

> And John has obviously never been involved in a Law Enforcement request.
> But I have.  Private emails to him seem to confirm this, or at least he
> didn't indicate anything to the contrary.  While he may have been working
> on SMTP protocols for 30 years, he obviously hasn't been involved in
> trackig abuse of various sorts, and has no idea of whether this is
> expensive or difficult.

- In his message on May 30, 18:24 -0400, he says:

> What you wrote is rather condencending, while
> I have be respectful, if direct.
.....
> As I pointed out, previously. You are just
> repeating canards, rather than addressing the issue of relevance.

John Klensin's public note that refers specifically to Dean Anderson was 
sent on May 27 21:29 -0400:

> Since this is a response to a note I wrote, I'm going to try to respond
> to it.  Then I'm going to go back to deleting your mail without reading
> it, because it doesn't appear to me as if you really intend to
> participate in this discussion, rather than reciting your set of canards
> over and over again.   The opinion of others may differ, of course but,
> as far as I am concerned, you are succeeding in losing all credibility.

As moderator, I find Dean Anderson's repeated postings of his erroneous 
inferences with regard to John Klensin's experience, as well as his blanket 
statements about the IETF process ("you have no place in the IETF" and 
"personality cult") to be highly unprofessional.

(I also find his total number of postings excessive, but he has been warned 
about that already, and seems to have slowed down - only 5 messages over 
the last 3 days).

John's comment, on the other hand, seems carefully crafted to report only 
John's opinion on Dean Anderson's postings, not asserting some general 
truth about Dean. While this style may also easily be abused, it is clearly 
not as clear a breach of the guideline of professional commentary as Dean's 
is.

John: Take care.

Dean: You have been warned.

                   Harald Alvestrand
                   speaking as moderator of the IETF list