On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> I find it hard to imagine that you, Randy, of all people would take
> issue with a situation where people were perceived to be being
> difficult just because they enjoyed it.
Alright, let me clarify a lot of things here in regards to
my posting and I hope you'll take the time to read it in order
to get a glimpse of me and my posting(s).
>> Technical details of permanent failure:
>> PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client
>> host [209.85.198.190] blocked using ubl.unsubscore.com; Sender has
>> sent to LashBack Unsubscribe Probe accounts
So let me get this correct, I who decided to use an rbl/ubl/spam filter
am in the wrong, or is it the provider who blacklisted the IP space in
the wrong.
> 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination,
> and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited.
Character assassination? Do you recall me responding to you off-list
for sake of abiding by your terms only to have you "assassinate my
character" by requesting that the NANOG community remeind of what the
AUP is on list? Isn't this an oxymoron?
> Let me reiterate that my motivation was my interpretation of your
> conduct on the list previously as being fairly non contributory and
> combative, as demonstrated above. It's certainly ok for you to
> disagree. I welcome it so that we can attempt to make the list better.
> That does not mean that you are correct.
YOUR INTERPRETATION. Is your interpretation that of the entire
administrative staff at NANOG as a whole. I'm not combative - defensive.
I responded to a post - your interpretation was I was being a smart ass.
I call it satire similar to Saturday Night Live. I responded to you and
the admins you cc'd I didn't cc the list you did. You were the one who
got defensive and reposted to the list. Why I have no idea, but that
was your decision.
YOUR INTERPRETATION perhaps should be reinforced by others on the list,
e.g., to iterate again, I once posted about operators who had dirty
networks and whats the solution when they don't clean em up, the
majority complained "off topic". Off topic? I scratched my head. How
can a million plus botnet be off topic. Should everyone wait until it
is used to flail their hands? Puzzles me.
> Your belief that my interpretation is incorrect, and open for debate,
> is noted and will be taken up with a higher power at a later date.
No debates here, you stated your point, I understood and disagreed to
you OFF-LIST - you took it to the next step, why who knows. So since
its best to be ON TOPIC, I ask this, for the past 3 months I
developed a tool that is certain to disconnect anything that has a
connection. Period.
It can be sent from a personal PC on a DSL connection and will shred
most routers, firewalls to pieces. This was sent to people in the IETF
in order for me to not create any sort of ruckus. Sent to 5 ESTABLISHED
individuals 3 of which are NANOG members and have written RFC's. Sent
to Cisco's PSIRT, they're stumped as to why it causes their routers
and Pix' to freeze. Juniper? Same. In fact anything that is connected...
Frozen.
If I sent the code and the write up out to NANOG, would it be on topic
or off topic. On the one hand its a DoS attack to make Smurfs look like
a mosquito in your ear, this is a swarm of killer bees... So on one hand,
Denial of Service off topic, on the other, disconnecting backbones, on
topic.
There are a lot of mis(sed)conceptions of who I am, my sense of humor
and the disconnect between me being arrogant, "combative", or someone
who views things from a different angle. Combative, me? Never, I just
will never let anyone try to kick me period. Never have never will.
Arrogant? Not at all, I've been fortunate enough to deal with others
off list who've inspired me, taught me the ropes and were kind enough
to set me on the right track and humble me. To them I bow on a daily
basis. I don't mind discipline but finger pointing is a pet peeve.
So as far as when you sat "debate", wouldn't that be like the first
rule of Fight Club?
6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
prohibited.
> Best Regards,
>
> Martin Hannigan
> NANOG MLC Member
>
Combative? No. I believe that many can contribute in different aspects
that might not have been visible or even a notion to others. Some
people tend to think outside of the norm. My hobbies? What a life...
I track pedophiles for three different agencies no cost, been doing
so since EHAP 1997. Other hobbies? Tracking botnets and making programs
to monitor and detect those botnets and inform network operators.
These are things I do on my own time, I don't bitch moan and gripe.
I look at it as my little contribution to e-Society. My sense of
humor does not appeal to all and I don't expect it to, but I also
don't expect someone to get bent out of shape and attempt to throw
in an aura of "entitlement" because they believe they're higher
than someone else. Sorry, that's my opinion. Many of us most
likely have never corresponded to one another on a personal level
so its difficult to assess whether someone is quirky, humorous
or an outright ass. I think of myself as curiously humorous. I'm
forever reading RFC's (PRINTED at that) and tinkering for the
sake of learning whatever I can. I continuously attempt to
contribute whatever I can back to those who've helped. Go see
the Asterisk mailing, go see how I've posted script after script
after script in order to help people. Go on the Way Back Machine
before David Dittrich and see how I wrote up a quick How To Stop
DoS before it became cliche.
Don't judge me based off a few words without understanding their
meaning or intent. Or judge me based off of something you heard
or read, or something someone else said... Judge me based off of
what you know directly, else anything else is being a hypocrit.
As for my NANOG postings, I will make sure they're from here on
out as "on topic" as they can be. As for doing something moronic
and taking personal things right back to list, that's child's
play and elitist bullshit if you ask me.
Seasons greetings
Jesus OquendO
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
J. Oquendo
SGFA #579 (FW+VPN v4.1)
SGFE #574 (FW+VPN v4.1)
echo c2lsQGluZmlsdHJhdGVkLm5ldAo=|\
python -c "import sys; print sys.stdin.read().decode('base64')"
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E
_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
