You should have made it clear you were using telnet to GO to a machine not
opening telnet access to the machine you were using. And then reiterated
that you were checking your email about a job.
Tards :(
Someone I know on a BBS made up a picture to post everytime someone posted a
dumb thread. I modified it and printed out a few of them to hand to llamas
like this guy.
Here it is (hope it isn't too offensive):
CONGRATULATIONS!
This is in your recognition of your efforts to be a person that increases
the level of faggotry and lameness on this planet!
YOUR CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT GONE UNRECOGNIZED!
- Kath
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:39 PM
Subject: [techtalk] Almost arrested for using telnet
> Last Thursday I was using my sneakernet copy of putty on an NT
> server at the Texas Workforce Commission to check email of
> fencepost. I had been doing this for a number of weeks as I am
> job-searching and have included my email address on my resume.
>
> Some young male who refused to identify himdelf came over to me
and
> asked, "Are you using *telnet*?"
> I replied that I was and he went absolutely ballistic! He claimed
> that telnet was strictly against the rules and waved his hand at
> the posted rules. The posted rules clearly state that these
> terminals are to be used for job-search-related functions and no
> programs may be installed that do not have direct bearing to one's
> job search. I pointed out that I was checking my email for a
reply
> to a job-feeler I had sent out the day before (this was true - I
> *was* actually using it for job-search-related activities that
day)
> and pointed out that I was not breaking any rules. He became more
> agitated and re-iterated that I was brealking all the rules and I
> must cease using telnet at once. I asked him why and he
> disappeared. I quickly browsed my email and found the reply I had
> been looking for, and managed to clumsily (it is m$) cut & paste
it
> onto my floppy before the young man came back with TWO POLICEMEN
> who asked me to come down to the station. Flabbergasted I asked
if
> I was under arrest at which point they may have blushed a bit (its
> hard to tell with blacks) and stammered that no, I was not exactly
> under arrest. They explained that I had broken the rules on that
> man's (they pointed to the still unnamed system manager) machines.
>
> I pointed out that the machines belonged to the taxpayers of Texas
> of which I was one, and also pointed out that I doubed I was
> breaking any rules. I explained that it was mostly a technical
> issue and if the unnamed manager could explain what danger I was
> exposing the machines to by running telnet I would be glad to
> stop. The unnamed one muttered something about opening ports,
once
> again refused to give his name (although by this time I had been
> forced to show my drivers licence and give my ss#) and referred me
> to his boss, who I will name in another post when I again have
> access to a terminal with telnet. For now, I am curious if anyone
> can give me a good reason why a sysadmin would not allow telnet to
> be used (when the m$ equivalent of a daemon) is not disabled?
>
> Thanks
>
> .Tami
> .signature: syntax error at line 1: `(' unexpected
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (512) 699-7175
> Austin, Tx.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>
_______________________________________________
techtalk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
