[[ _private_ email responses preferred (polite or otherwise), for matters ]]
[[ *NOT* directly related to the scope of the firewalls mailing-list ]]
I'm going to add a few words, well -- *more* than "a few', actually -- to
this OFF-TOPIC discussion, because there are some *important* issues
regarding the _people_ who are responsible for firewalls and other aspects
of system and network security, and thus "on-topic" for this list.
There have been several comments to the effect of "As long as there aren't
_too_many_ of them, or _too_often_, I dont see that this is a problem."
The really "funny" thing is that _not_one_ of these people saying "it's
ok" has any sort of control or authority over the *server* resources
being abused. Yet, they're saying its "OK" for somebody _else_ to use
those resources, for 'free', for commercial gain.
These people may not mind the "occasional" appearance in their own mailbox,
but they have _NO_ right to speak for any other subscriber, let alone the
list owner.
That aside, there is still a "fatal flaw" to the argument. To wit:
If it is 'legitimate' for _one_ recruiter to do this for *one*
position,
Then it is similarly acceptable for _every_ recruiter to do this
for EVERY POSITION they have that involves network security.
Somehow, I can't imagine that GNAC is willing (in any way, shape or
form) to be providing _their_ server and connectivity resources
for a recruiter to ADVERTIZE through, at no cost.
EVEN IF they were, there is a single *inevitible* result of "letting
the camel get his nose in the tent".
There is an entire USENET sub-hierarchy that is specifically
set aside for jobs postings. to wit "misc.jobs.*'. Of course,
it's *so* polluted by recruiter listings that it is utterly
unusable, and the recruiters are branching out 'anywhere' and
'everywhere' else..
The recruiter in question *IS* a spammer by definition. Proof: How many
people reading this _expressly_ consented to recieve recruiting pitches
from outside commercial agents who contribute nothing to the discussions
herein?
This spammer didn't even dare collect their own "opt in" list and send
from THEIR OWN server. No, they "relay raped" a machine run by another
business, _without_asking_. In effect they *STOLE* resources from that
company. and used those stolen resources to dump garbage in our mailbox.
I would suggest that, for anyone who even _considered_ the position, they
should think *hard* about whether they want someone with _those_ ethics
to represent them in -any- way. If you were hiring someone for a "sensitive
position" would you even _consider_ someone of those demonstrated ethical
standards??
I would also suggest that the 'ethics' of someone who thinks it is 'not a
problem' for a business to, for it's own COMMERCIAL GAIN, 'usurp' resources
provided by a different business 'for the good of the community', are *NOT*
those of a person I would want in a position of trust and/or responsibility,
and *especially* not where they are charged with keeping 'other people' from
usurping _my_ systems.
People responsible for maintaining system and network security must not
be 'merely' "Above Reproach" in all their actions, their behavior needs to
be "Above any *Appearance* of Reproach".
I hereby make a formal reqest of the list-owner to _permanently_ ban
"comforce.com" from the list.
I also plan to telephone the owners of the business, tomorrow, and explain
in pointed terms, what damage this (to put the _best_ possible light on it)
"unknowing, un-caring, igcnorant and inconsiderate" representative has done
to the professional reputation of their agency.
[ I've got my asbestos underwear on -- damn it's scratchy, too! *grin*
feel free to flame *privately* if you think I'm off base. ]
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: JOB OPPORTUNITY
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:46:25 +1000
>
> As long as these types of emails don't become so common to a point where
> they could be classified as spam I'm sure we'll survive.
> paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: JOB OPPORTUNITY
> >
> > "Richard A. Hill" wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree.
> > > Legitimate (and short) emails like this are not (or should not)
> > be an issue
> > >
> > > At 19:24 07/18/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >Very unethical use of thos board.
> > > >
> > > >Avi
> > > >
> > > >************************************
> > > >Avi A. Fogel
> > > >Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
> > > >"Securing e-Business Networks"
> > > >************************************
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Ann Pohlers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 7:17 PM
> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Subject: JOB OPPORTUNITY
> > > >
> > > >
[ snip the solicitation we've all seen TOO MUCH of it! ]
> > > >Ann Pohlers
> > > >IT Recruiter
> > > >Comforce Technical Services
> > > >877-565-4992
> > > >877-292-8561 FAX
> >
> > I agree no harm in someone getting a much needed opportunity
> > to use the skills we are all learning and working to perfect. I can't
> > think of anything more important to me either than having a job.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
