> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org Wed Sep 29 13:59:15 > 2010 > From: Justin Horstman <justin.horst...@gorillanation.com> > To: "'George Bonser'" <gbon...@seven.com>, Heath Jones <hj1...@gmail.com>, > "Ronald F. Guilmette" <r...@tristatelogic.com> > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:53:27 -0700 > Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked? > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbon...@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. =20 > > > Going 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.
