Cisco outage

J. Oquendo sil at
Tue Nov 27 13:18:39 UTC 2007

Martin Hannigan wrote:

> Can someone please indirectly email Mr. Oquendo and advise him that we
> would like to have a word with him? He seems to have blocked Google
> and has made us unable to have a chat.

Blocked Google? Strange I got this message. But since you wanted to
direct this back to the list when I responded to you, let me level
the playing ground and post my direct response to you. Since after
all I did follow procedures and leave it off the list.

> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:50:24 -0600
> From: "J. Oquendo" <sil at>
> To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at>
> Cc: admins at
> Subject: Re: Cisco outage
> Message-ID: <20071126235024.GA39489 at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> Martin Hannigan wrote:

>> We don't mind seeing reports on important parts of the overall
>> critical infrastructure being impacted, but we could probably do
>> without the off-topic remark that seems to be inaccurate as well. This

> I've made four posts in about three months... Is this a targeted
> "shut up"

>> In the future, please help us to make sure NANOG is operational by
>> being on topic -- and accurate -- wherenever posting.

> The link was/is relevant, comment is just a comment. Should I in
> turn complain about someone's signatures? Take a look at my four
> posts. Their comments and their all relevant to someone else's
> comment as are everyone's comments and responses.

> How many posts have I made? 12 in seven months...

>> So much for self healing networks eh

> Something personal you have to say, say it. But bitching and
> whining about me being off topic according to your personal
> taste and you'd have a hell of a lot of bitching to do about
> a hell of alot of other people.
// END

> Hopefully, this won't bounce like our private message did. We'll be
> forced to throw him off the list, sadly.

Now to be on topic, you state I bounced mail from Gmail?
Why didn't you include the SMTP error, I'd be curious to see
where I blocked it to correct it.

sudo grep -i hanni /var/log/maillog
Nov 27 00:01:14 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: D5BB73F420: from=<hannigan at>, size=2582, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 27 00:01:15 kryptonite postfix/pickup[73054]: 675043F43F: uid=1006 from=<hannigan at>
Nov 27 00:01:15 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: 675043F43F: from=<hannigan at>, size=2878, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 27 00:01:15 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: 763723F443: from=<hannigan at>, size=3061, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 27 00:01:36 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: CA1DB3F445: from=<hannigan at>, size=2544, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 27 00:01:37 kryptonite postfix/pickup[73054]: 2815A3F449: uid=1006 from=<hannigan at>
Nov 27 00:01:37 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: 2815A3F449: from=<hannigan at>, size=2840, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Nov 27 00:01:37 kryptonite postfix/qmgr[81759]: 470EA3F44B: from=<hannigan at>, size=3023, nrcpt=1 (queue active)

Funny, I don't see a rejection from me to you. If there
were though, how does a private domain come into a NANOG
thread. Its not like Infiltrated is an ISP, NSP, NAP or
any other peer or provider.

So again I ask you to look at my postings for the last
6 or 7 months where my responses are minimal. Operational
you state? Was this something akin to me posting about
Botnets but operators stating that 10gigs of malware
laced traffic is not operational?

J. Oquendo

----- End forwarded message -----

J. Oquendo
SGFA #579 (FW+VPN v4.1)
SGFE #574 (FW+VPN v4.1)

echo c2lsQGluZmlsdHJhdGVkLm5ldAo=|\
python -c "import sys; print'base64')"

More information about the NANOG mailing list