[162340] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cloudmark?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Hotze)
Tue Apr 9 13:17:17 2013
From: Martin Hotze <m.hotze@hotze.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:16:55 +0000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:31:08 -0400
> From: Chris Conn <cconn@b2b2c.ca>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: cloudmark?
> Message-ID: <5164262C.3070806@b2b2c.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed
>=20
> On 2013-04-09 10:27, Chris Conn wrote:
> >
(...)
> Your experience does not mirror mine at all. I have less than 30
good for you. :-)
> minutes of wait time for any support case, and they are few and far
> between. Reliability is high and FP rate is low. I have no idea what
> your reference to lawyers pertains to, however the only issue we have
> ever had was for them to take our money when we renewed for the
> umpteenth time.
We are not a paying cloudmark customer.
We just want to get one of our IPv4 address off of their list.
#m
