[28016] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Tue Apr 4 19:03:58 2000
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 06:59:06 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000405065900.W53904@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20000404232809.I12002@noc.ibm.net>; from John Payne on Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 11:28:09PM +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000, John Payne wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:15:24AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> > else. My default mode of operation has always been to keep the
> > identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL. It is a subject of interest to
>
> So publishing the leaked note verbatim doesn't strike you as possibly
> disclosing the identity of the leaker to the company that had it leaked?
>
> It seems to me that it would be trivia for exodus or any other company
> to insert uniquely identifying phrases or misspellings, or whatever...
Its the leaker's risk.
Adrian
