[163056] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for Netflow analysis package
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Starta)
Fri May 17 15:53:28 2013
From: John Starta <john@starta.org>
In-Reply-To: <35076.1368804240@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:02:53 -0700
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 17, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:22 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said:
>=20
>> You haven't been here long have you...
>>=20
>> He DOES NOT need a 260 word signature (see below!) to make sure he =
does
>> not get UCE from posting to NANOG.
>=20
> Actually, I think Thomas Cannon was making the opposite point - that =
if
> he's going to spam us all with a 260 word disclaimer, it could have =
been
> expanded to 263 words and add 'No cold calls'. Or just have that and =
lose
> the other 260 words that make absolutely no sense on a NANOG posting.
Do you believe that Brent wrote the disclaimer attached to his message? =
Despite y/our opinions of such disclaimers, legal counsel in some =
companies still mandate their automatic attachment on all outbound =
messages. The only means of avoiding them is to subscribe to mailing =
lists from a personal e-mail account. Unfortunately these companies =
usually also have policies prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail =
accounts from company owned resources which can minimize the usefulness =
of some lists. In other words, just because we might work for =
"enlightened" companies doesn't mean all our colleagues can or do.=
