From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com@nanog.org Wed Sep 29 13:59:15 2010
From: Justin Horstman <justin.horstman@gorillanation.com>
To: "'George Bonser'" <gbonser@seven.com>, Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com>,
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:53:27 -0700
Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser@seven.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:44 AM
> To: Heath Jones; Ronald F. Guilmette
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
Is the person reporting this
> a
> known network operator that people trust or is it some Joe Blow out of
> nowhere that nobody has heard of before? That would make a huge
> difference. =20Going to his website....looks like Joe Blow...Googling his name/email/domai=
n, still nothing that would lead me to believe he is network Savvy. So comi=
ng from Joe Blow network Dude....he too is just Joe Blow. Just a little per=
spective for you from the bottom of the pile.
At least some of us -- who have been on the net for multiple decades --
know who the OP is.
He's kept a low profile for a number of years, but he was very active in
the early days of the anti-spam wars. Anyone actively involved in anti-spam
activities in the days when promiscuous mail relays were common, (and
Sun was still shipping 'sendmail 8.6.4') will likely recogize the name.
They may have to think for a while, due to the time involved, but he was
very well known in those days. 'Notorious' would be considered by some
to be an accurate description. Absolutely top-notch technical skills,
but a bit of a loose cannon in implementing things _he_ decided were 'for
the good of the community'. 'Active' techniques, not just passive ones.
*IF* he was accurate in his assessment, and it is my personal opinioin
that it is *highly*likely* that there _was_ some sort of 'funny business'
involved, whether or not his idenfitication was 100% accurate (and, based
on personal experience again, I regard it a probable that he was =entirely=
correct in his assessment), *THEN* the odds are quite good that one or more
of the parties ivolved is a subscriber to this list.
Considered in _that_ light, it would be simply 'stupid' -- which Ron is
_not_ -- to tip them off as to where they screwed up, and what gave them
away.