Posted by Baho Utot on 01/24/08 21:22

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Baho Utot wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:

[putolin]

>> I see, May we have the knowledge of what your qualifications are?
>>
>
> Over 40 years of programming, over 20 of that in TCP/IP. Including
> working on the internals of the protocol.

Oh then you know Jon Postel. Any way I don't believe you have that
experience. Sorry Jerry.

I could tell you of my experience but it is not relevant as I don't have an
ego to satisfy.

>
>>> I agree the RFC's indicate how something *should* operate.
>>
>> The RFCs in comment here are Standards......... or as others have said
>>
>
> Sure. But that does NOT mean there are not holes in the protocol which
> can be used by hackers.

Yes there are holes that can be exploited, but not as easily as you think.

[putolin]

>
>>> These guys have no *real* idea what they're talking about, and no
>>> knowledge of how to exploit the holes in the protocols.
>>
>> You don't know that nor can you prove that.
>>
>
> You've already proven that, Baho, by your lack of understanding. You
> think RFC's are the only thing going. Sorry, Charlie. They show how
> things *should work* - but don't go into what *can* be done by a hacker.
>

What don't I understand, you keep saying that but it don't make it true.
Want to tell me what I have for dinner?

>>> But they
>>> continue to refer you to Wikipedia and RFC's to prove their case.
>>>
>>
>> What!!!!!!!!
>>
>> THE RFCs aren't real....
>>
>
> I never said the RFC's aren't real. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am not...You imply they are not to be followed or of no value.


[putolin]

>
>> Besides I don't have a case to prove.
>>
>
> I really don't give a damn. I have nothing to prove.

OK

>
>>> The problem is - they prove nothing. But they're too stoopid to
>>> understand that.
>>

[putolin]

>
> Go ahead. Keep quoting the RFC's. It continues to show how little you
> understand what *can* be done.

I know what can be done, I don't live under a rock.

[putolin]

> How little you really understand.

I understand more than you give credit

>
> But it's obvious - you're only arguing to argue.

How so?

I posted facts and information, you posted.... well nothing but your rants.

> You're another I guess I'm just going to have to *plonk* you again - like
I did in a.w.w.

Thank you!

> You were no more intelligent there, and we're glad you're gone.
>

What do you have a mouse in your pocket?

--
Dancin in the ruins tonight
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

[Back to original message]