At 22:42 07/18/2000 CDT, robert bonomi wrote:
>[[ _private_ email responses preferred (polite or otherwise), for matters ]]
>[[ *NOT* directly related to the scope of the firewalls mailing-list ]]
>
Fellow electronic warriors,
Does anyone know where I can get a job in the San Diego area with a great
company that is currently working on the development of intrusion detection
software and computer security.
The job should be able to pay a VERY competitive salary, offer great
benefits and be willing to pay relocation costs for myself and my colony of
Bulgarian lemmings. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Now that I have your attention, can we please get on with discussing
firewall-related issues instead of all this *crap* -- for a while there, I
thought this was the "Jerry Springer Digital Auditions" list -- and I was
having a tough time deciding who would win -- there were so many talented
and promising applicants!
So, get a grip, let out a chuckle and log out of your mail program for the
night -- tomorrow should be a brighter day!
Best regards.
Devon Null
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can
be adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
___________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
---------------------<-snip->----------------------
>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.
>-
|==========================<-30->==================|
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
