Moving to misc@ > On Sep 18, 2026, at 9:26 PM, Zack Newman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Claiming that the OpenBSD implementation is “abandoned”, especially over a >> single commit that actually fixes a severe memory corruption bug, is a >> massive breach of basic mailing list etiquette. As I said, the driver has >> received over 40 commits since its initial implementation. The WireGuard >> reference implementation and protocol have been frozen from before the >> OpenBSD implementation was completed. This means we are 100% up-to-date and >> actively maintained. > > I’ll let Jason and the team reject my proposal and even ban me then for > “breaching” mailing etiquette, but I’m not going to let you make that > decision for them. If you’re right, then they won’t listen. I wasn’t super > passionate about it and was fairly polite.
You violated bugs@ mailing list etiquette by trying to “escalate to the manager” at upstream for a simple bug that doesn’t need to involve anyone else. You lied about the repo being 5 years out of date. > >> Did you even test any of the proposed patches? > > I proposed one patch, and no I didn’t test it because I don’t trust it at all > seeing how I don’t know C well. I was transparent in that regard. Perhaps I > should have been more explicit with “_seems_ fine”. It seems fine on glancing > at it but not actually testing it because I’m not going to trust an LLM > without being competent enough to have a good idea > if it’s correct. Both Bjorn and Claudio proposed patches. You even asked Bjorn if he tested his own code. I replied to your previous email almost simultaneously as your vibe coded patch showed up in my inbox. No, I do not want you to test your vibe coded patch. It introduced out of scope behavior (dropping packets) for absolutely no reason. I want you to test Claudio’s patch which “_seems_ fine” to me and everyone else watching. Did you not see his email for some reason? Why did an AI agents vibe coded patch “_seem_ fine” but Claudio’s patch did not? > >> No, you didn’t. Your repro steps for IPv4 were also fundamentally flawed. >> You are trying to prove there is some other hidden ghosts but there aren’t >> any. > > Not at all. I didn’t want to assume that a padding bug was the only issue > since it didn’t seem to explain what I was seeing. I wanted to actually test > further before coming to an incorrect conclusion which is what I did. The > fact you are upset that I took more time to ensure the bug was isolated to > padding is suggestive you’re in a heightened emotional state, and I don’t > care to engage further. It didn’t seem to explain what you were seeing TO YOU. You tested further, in a flawed manner, and still came to an incorrect conclusion. You admitted your VPS provider was dropping IPv6 UDP fragments. You disregarded and specifically did not trust two OpenBSD developers for some reason. You are not the one to assume it’s a simple padding bug or not, the developers are responsible for determining the root cause and they did and they provided patches. They even told you it’s likely IPv6 UDP fragmentation that is the issue and some hypervisors drop those packets. I’m upset because you are wasting everyone’s time and then you have the absolute gall to “escalate to the manager” at upstream because you cannot trust the OpenBSD developers and you want to waste even more people’s time. > >> Either test the patch and return the results or tell us you cannot test it >> and someone else will. > > As stated above, I was transparent in that I let an LLM generate the code. > I’d hope you wouldn’t just trust that, but I should have been clearer that I > didn’t test it and am not willing to either since I’m not in a habit of > blindly trusting LLM-generated code. Should I have not even suggested a > commit at all then? Perhaps. No, you absolutely should not have vibe coded a patch. You should have tested the proposed patches you received, one of which you explicitly asked the developer if he tested his own code. > > Instead of letting @bugs get spammed with your rants, feel free to direct the > e-mail to me directly seeing how we are talking about “etiquette”. Do you > have a proposed patch for this bug? I’m not taking it private. I’m putting it on misc@ so you can be ashamed of your behavior. Go back in the mailing list archives and find Claudio’s email with the final, correct patch. You must have lost that email somehow in your inbox. Test the patch and return the results. If you cannot test, let us know so someone else can test it.
