> Maybe you didn't recognize the original poster, but I did, and I would take > what he had to say at least seriously enough to have a look. His followup > mail, while not giving people the information they wanted (as if it really > matters) did mention that the upstream appears to have cut them off. That > is a pretty good indication that *something* was going on there. > > I don't believe it is anyone's job here to conform to the expectations of > anyone else aside from general list etiquette and some level of sanity. He > put the information out, it is up to the reader in how they weight it. I > don't > understand your continued banging on the issue. All he did was put > information out there. He doesn't need to meet your criteria, you are free to > apply that as you will in the privacy of your own cubicle.
George, Again - appealing to personal authority is a fallacy. It carries no logical weight who the poster is, and has no place in a decision making process of such magnitude. No one has to conform to any standard, and I don't think I suggested otherwise. What I did suggest is what would be required in such an email to convince me personally to take any action. The very point of posting a hijacking notification is to convince people to take action, so it's only reasonable to make such a notification as thorough and supported as possible. And it is in the best interests of the process to review communications issues afterwards - if the OP is genuinely interested in helping the internet by letting us know when an AS has been hijacked, then he should certainly appreciate any feedback on how to make those notifications more effective. I'm also not sure what you mean by 'continued banging on the issue'. This is my first email in this thread... Nathan
