[techtalk] The manager to send flames to:

[Tami Friedman]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear in my original post.  I loaded
NOTHING onto the TWC machine.  THe telnet daemon (or whatever M$ calls
it) was already running.  I merely took advantage of an ALREADY
INSTALLED PROGRAM in order to read email as part of my job search (an
activity which has been totally halted by this senseless act. The
search for public terminals that have telnet require several hours a
day in bus rides and terminal time is limited to no more than one hour
a day.)

The majority of replies I have received agree with my original
position that my use of telnet (a locally provided service) was and is
no more harmful than using the web - which is also a local service and
which ALSO provides telnet as part of its options (a fact I learned at
the public library).  Considering that the printed rules at TWC state
that the computer resources are provided FOR THE PURPOSES OF JOB
SEARCHES, and I was using ALREADY EXISTING RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF JOB SEARCHING, I cannot see how I was possibly breaking any rules.
THe fact that I use telnet to read my email instead of the web should
in no way count against me.  I have been reading my email from this
account in this manner since before there was a web.  (This account is
almost 12 years old). 

So far I have gotten a great deal of response to my original post and
the prevailing answers to my original queries are that (1) the system
manager is not clueful and (2) my use of telnet to connect to
another machine in no way harms the originating machine (at TWC).
People have suggested that I use ssh, but I am using opie which is
also secure (because it uses one-time disposable passwords) and I
prefer opie since I have no idea how many sniffers are installed
between TWC and my destination machine.  Even if my password were
detected, no one could use it again.  I have to supply a new one (from
a hardcopy list) each time I log in.  As far as I know, opie is at
least as secure as ssh.  

At any rate, the use of ssh or opie or kerberos is for the protection
of the DESTINATION machine, which is far more vulnerable to attack
than the ORIGINATING machine.  The destination machine administrators
are all sympathetic with my plight and have no problems with my
continued use of telnet/opie in this fashion.  It is the so-called manager
of the ORIGINATING machine - a machine which is in NO DANGER, who is
having a cow.  I still don't know his name which is part of why I want
his boss to be made aware of the entire situation.

Once again - for those with an intelligent understanding of the problem:

>>The administrator to which the unnamed machine manager referred me
>>and to whom complaints about the anonymous clueless one may be sent
>>(cc: or Bcc: tami at gnu.org please) is:
>>
>>              Theodore Andrews III, Site Manager
>>                3401 Webberville Rd, Bldg 1000
>>                       Austin, Tx 78702
>>                     (512) 223-5459(voice)
>>                      (512) 223-5464(fax)
>>
>>               theodore.andrews at twc.state.tx.us
>>
>>
>>I appreciate everyone's help.
>>
>>
PS: Maureen - thank you so much for giving me some insight into the
possible nature of the paranoid clueless power trip that this
particular system manager may be experiencing.  I am thankful that I
never behaved in such an arrogant manner when *I* was a sysadmin!

.Tami
 .signature: syntax error at line 1: `(' unexpected

tami at gnu.org
(512) 699-7175
Austin, Tx.