AS11296 -- Hijacked?

Wed Sep 29 22:04:44 UTC 2010

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com at nanog.org  Wed Sep 29 13:59:15 2010
> From: Justin Horstman <justin.horstman at gorillanation.com>
> To: "'George Bonser'" <gbonser at seven.com>, Heath Jones <hj1980 at gmail.com>,
>         "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:53:27 -0700
> Subject: RE: AS11296 -- Hijacked?
> Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser at seven.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:44 AM
> > To: Heath Jones; Ronald F. Guilmette
> > Cc: nanog at 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.