| RHF Joke Archives | 
In our R&D department, persons are required to request the use of any IP addresses for testing before configuring their device with it. Normally this is a straightforward process of ensuring nobody else is using the desired address. Of course some people around here like to re-define normal!
The following is an email conversation I saw earlier today: [I have assigned random names to protect the guilty]
***********************
>From: Stephan
>Subject: IP 192.168.1.153
This is an email requesting the official use of 192.168.1.153 for SNMP test.
Please direct me to the proper place where I can use/buy this address for
testing.
Thank you for your help.
***********************
>From: Al H.
>Subject: RE: IP 192.168.1.153
Hi...
Congratulations! You are the proud new owner of an IP address, 192.168.1.153 .
Accounting has been notified, and payment will be via payroll deduction. Please
keep your receipt for exchange/refund/tax purposes.
***********************
>From: Stephan
>Subject: RE: IP 192.168.1.153
What kind of negotiation is that? Forwarding that request off to payroll. Is
it kinda of like "you touch it you bought it?" You haven't even heard my bid
price for it. I was hoping to get this one cheap. I have been testing it out,
and it appears to ping slower than the other ones you gave me. I think it is
fairly used and I was wondering what type of a warranty comes with it? Also,
what is the trade in value of the other IP's I have, out of curiosity, if I
should no longer need them.
Thanks
***********************
>From: Al H.
>Subject: RE: IP 192.168.1.153
Hi...
I don't remember using the word 'negotiation'... Your original email did not
specify an offered price, only a willingness to 'use/buy' the address - and
this aint no library kid! This is big business!! By using the address already,
you've implicitly agreed to the purchase/usage agreement, which explicitly
states that exchanges and refunds will only be considered before additional
usage takes place.
That address was previously owned by a little old lady who only downloaded
bondage .gifs on Sundays, so it had low milage, and besides - it worked *just
fine* before you started using it.
We're in the business of providing IP addresses, not buying them, so if *you*
don't want your IP addresses anymore, you can check with your co-workers to
see if they want to buy it from you - but I'll warn you up front, the resale
value on them isn't great!
***********************
>From: Stephan
>Subject: RE: IP 192.168.1.153
Al H.,
It seems that you have now further devalued the worth of 192.168.1.153 by
attaching a dirty porn reference to it and passing it around the email
group (and you said it was hardly USED). This should be further cause to
dicount this one, not to mention the fact that it isn't even a full ip
address. Next time i'll apply for a broadcast address, or at least one
that contains bits closer to 255.
***********************
>From the Law Firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe:
Dear Sir;
My client wishes to inform you that pursuant to the transaction that has
occurred between yourself and my client, my client has fulfilled all aspects of
the purchase/usage agreement by providing you with the address you requested,
in a timely fashion, which you implicitly agreed to by using said address.
At that point, you (the purchasor and new owner of said address) became
completely and wholly responsible for said address as well as all references
and usages of said address, and discussions regarding said address. My client
is no longer responsible for, nor will he accept any further responsibility
for any problems with said address. It was delivered when requested - as
requested. It was your (the purchasor) responsibility to verify the pedigree
and suitability of said address before the transaction was entered into.
Your claim that "it isn't even a full ip address" is incorrect (as can be
confirmed by any approved regulatory agency), and borders on libelous. Trust
us, we know, we're lawyers.
***********************
> From the law firm of Hewey, Duwey, and Lewey:
Dir Sir;
Pursuant to your recent transaction and email exchange with our client we
have been contracted to represent Stephan in the matter of "Stephan vs Al H.."
Although we have been given full authority to pursue this matter in a court
of law, we feel that you will see the benefits of reaching a settlement
agreement which is satifactory to all parties concerned.
To assist in clarifying your current situation in this matter, we submit
the documents attached below for your review. As you will note, sufficient
evidence is present for a judgement in the favor of our client.
[Document 09453B-1999-06-02]
To whom it may concern:
I feel that I must come to the defense of Stephan in this blatant example of
"Used Car Saleman Syndrome" which Al H. has fell victum too.
Reportedly the IP address in question is to be considered to be in "good
working condition" where infact I have evidence to the contrary! A simple
search of the Software Problem Database will return numerous examples of
cases where this specific address has been subjected to a variety of
abusive tests; including subnet masking, ICMP redirects, network
unreachables and other torturous proceedures.
In a few documented cases it even states that the device configured with
the IP address 198.169.1.153 would not respond to pings, telnets, or any
other form of IP based queries. This further supports Stephan's case that
the requested IP address can not be considered to be in good working order.
[source unpublished at this time]
[Document 08453C-1999-05-15]
MEMORANDUM
>From: Office of R&D Internal Affairs.
To: [source unpublished at this time]
Dear Sir,
With respect to your request for a background check on one Al H., regarding
past and present IP address transactions, please be aware that this
individual is under current investigation for IP Address Fraud. An
transactions entered into with this individual should be approached with
EXTREME CAUTION.
With regard to your question as to the integrity of Al H., interviews with
several co-workers have uncovered facts which indicate that he is the Boss
of the local IP address black market. Reviews of log books has show
repeated resale of the same addresses. Inspection of the local intranet
web site has shown how Al H. controls IP address and assigns them to
co-workers in return for "special favors."
In your request you mention Al H.'s suggestion that the addresses have
little or know resale value. This office believes that this is simply an
attempt by Al H. to re-gain control of abandoned addresses so as to benefit
>From their resale to future unsuspecting clients.
I would suggest that you immediately contact the local R&D Consumer
Protection branch before any monies is transferred.
-----
Regarding the question of the validity of the claim "it isn't even a full
ip address" as presented in the letter from your legal representative:
Please note that the mentioned approved regulatory agency also states that
a full valid IP address must include a subnet mask! Failure on your part
to provide this required information in the afore mentioned transaction
with our client provides the basis for Breach of Contract as per Article
2.01 "Genuine Intention" under the Contractual Law Act.
Lastly we must inform you that we are currently pursing a Court Injuction
to prevent an futher transaction of the afore mentioned type until this
issue is settled to our clients satisfactions.
Regards,
***********************
To the law firm of Hewey, Duwey, and Lewey:
My client suggests that a law firm with your professed reputation would be
able to afford not only a spell-checker, but also a clue-checker.
Please provide concrete examples of the test documents you refer to, or the
*shoe* will be on the other foot in terms of liability, and your 'organization'
*will be swimming* in stacks of legal red-tape. Our organization has
successfully represented many groups, including one from Marine Land known only
as *the fishes*.
Let me dummy it down a notch for you: We successfully represented New York's
'Teflon Don' until he refused to pay his bill, at which point he was reminded
that non-stick items should not come into contact with sharp metal objects.
Pursuant to your obviously mis-informed arguments regarding this matter, and
your libelous characterization of my client, I'm reminded of the case of 'My
Uncle Vinny's Foot Vs Your Butt'.
| RHF Joke Archives |