[134858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco Sanitization
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Wed Jan 12 13:58:00 2011
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:00:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D2DD4AC.7040406@deaddrop.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---1463794431-409618705-1294843873=:5520
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=X-UNKNOWN; FORMAT=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101120958451.5520@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Lynda wrote:
> On 1/12/2011 8:04 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
>
>> list, sorry for this but this is getting a little annoying. I've
>> tried sending Randy email without luck.. think i'm black listed by
>> his kit, so if someone would kindly forward this to him=85
>
> Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other=20
> account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy ou=
t.=20
> Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy =
to=20
> set up a script such as Randy has.
>
> You don't want to be annoyed? Lose the disclaimer, use a different email=
=20
> address, or filter Randy out. This is NOT the first time you've complaine=
d=20
> about this (although we know, for sure, that Randy is going to send this =
off,=20
> automagically, to anyone that has the silly disclaimer thing going for th=
em).=20
> Get over it. Please don't post on this again. Thanks in advance.
While I agree that the disclaimers are annoying, I also recognize that:
1. Many companies have policies that require them to append those=20
disclaimers to every outgoing email message, and the people who post to=20
NANOG often don't have any control over that policy. Debating on=20
this list whether those policies are right or wrong really isn't=20
constructive.
2. Some companies have very strict policies against unauthorized surfing=20
on company time, and checking a gmail account could fall under their=20
definition of unauthorized surfing, even if the purpose of checking said=20
gmail account is to try to resolve a work issue without offending=20
someone's procmail filters with your company's auto-disclaimer. Debating=
=20
on this list whether those policies are right or wrong really isn't=20
constructive either.
That said, sending the "You sent me a message with a disclaimer that I=20
do not accept and have thrown in the bitbucket" response back to NANOG,=20
for the enjoyment of the other 10,000+ people on the list is even more=20
annoying....
This will be my only post to this particular tangent of the original=20
thread.
jms
---1463794431-409618705-1294843873=:5520--
