[128382] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Aug 5 09:18:56 2010
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT."
<AANLkTimxu210b7PiPHr5yE1oYV-p__ZdzRQRet7dfMSo@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:17:17 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1281014237_3971P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT, William Herrin said:
> It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
> but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
> constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.
Right. The point is that by the same "what is the personal gain" standard, it
isn't obvious that redacted == fraud by definition. If I have an alternate
physical mailbox and a redacted electronic address for the exact same reason
(privacy and security), how is one fraudulent and the other not?
--==_Exmh_1281014237_3971P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMWrndcC3lWbTT17ARAlLWAKDIDX19tBZKX6AiyBl50mgmzhtGcgCgiDce
Uy8bOuWJVyM7pJu/oRCDiBM=
=P2Q6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1281014237_3971P--
