Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?

Thu Oct 1 05:09:11 UTC 1998

I never advocated a DoS attack, as a matter of fact I specificly said I
did would not advocate it.  I did say it would solve the problem.
DoS attacks are against the AUP I wrote for my company and applies
to my customers.  I've terminated people for violating it.

Quote from message:
Message-Id: <199809302119.QAA01729 at freeside.fc.net>
From: Jeremy Porter <jerry at freeside.fc.net>
...
Not that I would advocate such activity...

As far as the technical merits of this, it should be observed that
anyone unprepared to deal with DoS is foolish, and at this time
the chance of successfully prosecuting someone for a DoS attack is
very low, and from what I've been able to see in my time in
the business most of the attacks are on high profile targets.
(What sites get smurfed the most?, three letters IRC...)

I can't control what say about what I write, but the proof is in the
mail archive.  
If I was the type of person you claim, you would be seeing a demand
for an apology or lawsuit.  Since I'm not, I won't, and frankly
I doubt anyone that knows me would believe you anyway.

Perhaps you can say something useful, after you learn to read.
And to note:  I took the personal comments off the CC lists.  This individual
was the one that felt he had to post personal attacks on Nanog about
someone he apparently doesn't even know.

You make me want to puke.

In message <19980930233226.35526 at shell.nacs.net>, "Steven J. Sobol" writes:
>[ In reply to a private message from Jeremy Porter. ]
>
>
>> Maybe you should post a clarification that you do not feel RBL is
>> the same a terriorism.  That is certainly the appearance you gave.
>> In all the messages in the thread posted to nanog my was the only
>> replace that suggested solutions, and it was on topic.
>
>Done. Yes, when I mentioned the T-word, I was not refering to the RBL. The
>RBL is voluntary and allows people to deny others access to THEIR OWN
>machines. It has nothing to do with people trying to deny others access to
>machines the perpetrators do NOT own - that is what I take issue with.
>
>> Your accusations of terrorism, stupidity and your pity are not
>> needed on Nanog, perhaps on other mailing lists such comments are
>> reasonable.
>
>I see absolutely no call for you to be advocating denial of service attacks
>anywhere - and ESPECIALLY not on NANOG, where everyone *knows better anyhow*.
>
>The knife cuts both ways.
>
>I hope no one using an nstc.com account, or an account at my upstream,
>ever even comes close to getting you upset because it sounds like in a
>situation like that, you would advocate a DoS attack against the network
>involved. I'm sorry, but I am not retracting my statement that that IS
>terrorism, and there is absolutely no call for it, and if you commit a DoS
>attack you deserve whatever sanctions you get hit with, either by your
>upstream or the law.
>
>Period. 
>
>-- 
>
>Anyone who spams me will be subject to torture by Jake,
>my killer attack hedgehog, and/or Lizzy and Junior, my man-eating iguanas.
>

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net