Nikolas Geyer <nik at neko.id.au> wrote:
I have passed your email on to the relevant team within DO to have a look at.
Thank you, but that wasn't what I requested, I asked for a contact there. (I know that this may be hard to understand, but it's like the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching him how to fish. I'm sure that you would make a fine long term conduit between me and whatever mystery people you think you have made contact with at DigitalOcean, but really, it would be best if you would simply introduce me to those people directly. That way, if you die or go on vacation, incidents like these won't need to be put on hold until you get back and resume your role as our designated go-between.)
I'd like to thank you for your deriding commentary to bring attention to this problem.
No problem. My pleasure.
I am not sure it is the most effective way to try and engage the wider industry on a public list, but each to their own.
I am not sure that there is any other way that a lone outsider can or could engage either OVH or DigitalOcean in a way that would actually cause either company to take action on the issues I've reported on. Complaints from ordinary Internet end-lusers about this, which both companies must surely be drowing in by now, don't seem to be doing the job. In any case, I would be more than happy to have you tell me the "right way" to engage with any actual live human beings at either of these companies, especially if you also are able to identify one or more such receptive individuals by name and email address, which is what I was requesting in the first place.
Oh, and additionally, as an Australian citizen with many Aussie and Kiwi colleagues working at DO of various religious persuasions; your postscript relating this back to the recent terror attacks is abhorrent and disgusting. You should be completely ashamed.
It's pretty clear to me that you have rather dramatically misread my the aforementioned postscript to my earlier post, and that a fair and clear-eyed reading of that should be quite entirely inoffensive to all, with the possible exception of some few people who work in mass media and/or the "news" business, such as it currently is. In that postscript, I merely used a recent mass media controversy relating specifically and only to the social media -handling- of recent events to illustrate two blatant absurdities at opposite ends of a spectrum, neither of which itself has anything at all do do with those recent news events specifically, much less with the race, creed, color or gender of any of the people who have, most sadly and regretably, been caught up in those events. Please consider again the two polar opposite absurdities that I was actually attempting to call attention to. One the one hand, we have TV talking heads, with essentially no technical knowledge whatsoever, wondering aloud why social media tech companies cannot do what is clearly technically impossible, and even more absurdly, why they can't do it in real time no less. On the other hand, and in contrast to that absurdity, we have the present example of this spamming operation that appears to be well and truly ensconsed on the networks of both OVH and DigitalOcean, where even large multi-billion dollar Internet hosting companies seem utterly unable to spot even trivial and easily identifiable patterns of bad behavior, in and among their own respective customer bases, even though, as I have now illustrated, a single lone unpaid volunteer guy, sitting in his basement and in his sweaty underwear and a bathrobe -can- easily and quickly spot the problem, within just a couple of hours in fact, provided that he has access to a decent quality passive DNS service and an ample supply of electricity, margaritas and cigarettes. I'm only kidding, of course. I don't actually have a basement. Regards, rfg P.S. Your apparent misreading of my earlier postscript is entirely understandable and forgiveable in light of the rather unfortunate quip that I made just prior to that, about sending this specific miscreant to Guantanamo if his skin color was sufficiently dark. I seriously regret and apologize for that inartful phrasing, and ask every charitable person to believe me when I say that that was said entirely in jest (albeit a bad one), and that if anything, it was intended to be an expression of my own personal outrage about my own country's abundant inequity and unfairness when dealing with people of color, either within our so-called justice system or elsewhere. Our justice system should be color blind. Alas, there is much evidence that it falls far short of this goal at the present time.