[27999] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fletcher E Kittredge)
Tue Apr 4 14:30:13 2000
Message-Id: <200004041827.e34IRpL06934@sss1.gwi.net>
To: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>
Cc: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Apr 2000 21:47:50 EDT."
<4.3.1.2.20000403214713.00a82e20@lint.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:27:51 -0400
From: Fletcher E Kittredge <fkittred@sss1.gwi.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 21:47:50 -0400 Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> >surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
> >
> > >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000
> > >To: Notify
> > >Subject: Exodus Customer Confidential Communication
> > >
>
> Gordon,
>
> Does the word "confidential" elude you?
>
> - paul
Golly Paul, I would not have guessed you would have taken this
position.
If a tobacco company marks a collusion document "CONFIDENTIAL", should
the press not report it?
If a Waco report is market "Top Secret", should the press not report
it?
If Boeing has a flawed design, should the press not report it?
There is a fair amount of evidence that an unruly and discourteous
press is a profound good for society....
regards,
fletcher
P.S. "Scandal-Monger", Safire, William, 2000
