I agree 100%. Besides there is a mail list for this sort of thing run by
Security Focus.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read by people who are actually interested in read the help wanted spam,
specifically related to security jobs.
my 2cents
Michael DeSimone
Computers & Stuff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 10:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [semi-rant] RE: JOB OPPORTUNITY
>
>
> [[ _private_ email responses preferred (polite or otherwise), for
matters ]]
> [[ *NOT* directly related to the scope of the firewalls
ng-list ]]
>
> I'm going to add a few words, well -- *more* than "a few', actually -- to
> this OFF-TOPIC discussion, because there are some *important* issues
> regarding the _people_ who are responsible for firewalls and other aspects
> of system and network security, and thus "on-topic" for this list.
>
>
> There have been several comments to the effect of "As long as there aren't
> _too_many_ of them, or _too_often_, I dont see that this is a problem."
>
> The really "funny" thing is that _not_one_ of these people saying "it's
> ok" has any sort of control or authority over the *server* resources
> being abused. Yet, they're saying its "OK" for somebody _else_ to use
> those resources, for 'free', for commercial gain.
>
> These people may not mind the "occasional" appearance in their own
mailbox,
> but they have _NO_ right to speak for any other subscriber, let alone the
> list owner.
>
>
> That aside, there is still a "fatal flaw" to the argument. To wit:
> If it is 'legitimate' for _one_ recruiter to do this for *one*
> position,
> Then it is similarly acceptable for _every_ recruiter to do this
> for EVERY POSITION they have that involves network security.
> Somehow, I can't imagine that GNAC is willing (in any way, shape or
> form) to be providing _their_ server and connectivity resources
> for a recruiter to ADVERTIZE through, at no cost.
> EVEN IF they were, there is a single *inevitible* result of "letting
> the camel get his nose in the tent".
>
> There is an entire USENET sub-hierarchy that is specifically
> set aside for jobs postings. to wit "misc.jobs.*'. Of course,
> it's *so* polluted by recruiter listings that it is utterly
> unusable, and the recruiters are branching out 'anywhere' and
> 'everywhere' else..
>
> The recruiter in question *IS* a spammer by definition. Proof: How many
> people reading this _expressly_ consented to recieve recruiting pitches
> from outside commercial agents who contribute nothing to the discussions
> herein?
>
> This spammer didn't even dare collect their own "opt in" list and send
> from THEIR OWN server. No, they "relay raped" a machine run by another
> business, _without_asking_. In effect they *STOLE* resources from that
> company. and used those stolen resources to dump garbage in our mailbox.
>
> I would suggest that, for anyone who even _considered_ the position, they
> should think *hard* about whether they want someone with _those_ ethics
> to represent them in -any- way. If you were hiring someone for a
"sensitive
> position" would you even _consider_ someone of those demonstrated ethical
> standards??
>
> I would also suggest that the 'ethics' of someone who thinks it is 'not a
> problem' for a business to, for it's own COMMERCIAL GAIN, 'usurp'
resources
> provided by a different business 'for the good of the community', are
*NOT*
> those of a person I would want in a position of trust and/or
responsibility,
> and *especially* not where they are charged with keeping 'other people'
from
> usurping _my_ systems.
>
> People responsible for maintaining system and network security must not
> be 'merely' "Above Reproach" in all their actions, their behavior needs to
> be "Above any *Appearance* of Reproach".
>
>
>
> I hereby make a formal reqest of the list-owner to _permanently_ ban
> "comforce.com" from the list.
>
> I also plan to telephone the owners of the business, tomorrow, and explain
> in pointed terms, what damage this (to put the _best_ possible light on
it)
> "unknowing, un-caring, igcnorant and inconsiderate" representative has
done
> to the professional reputation of their agency.
>
> [ I've got my asbestos underwear on -- damn it's scratchy, too! *grin*
> feel free to flame *privately* if you think I'm off base. ]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
