[35830] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Fri Mar 16 10:24:47 2001
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:05:15 -0500
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010316100515.E21128@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qFgkTsE6LiHkLPZw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103160653540.32029-100000@core.teamplay.net>; from mdevney@teamsphere.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 06:57:24AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--qFgkTsE6LiHkLPZw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 06:57:24AM -0800, mdevney@teamsphere.com wrote:
>=20
> I don't know what your job entails, but my job description includes the
> phrase "keeping the network and all associated servers and services
> functional." Which means, among other things, making sure DNS
> works. Were I to go with new.net, I would be remiss in my duties
> and should (though I probably wouldn't) be fired. =20
I buy that as a reason for you not to use them, and I buy that as a reason
for me not to use them.
I don't buy it as a reason to make what they're doing illegal, which is
what a few in this discussion are advocating.
That'd be like making IPX illegal, because it prevents those machines
from properly interoperating with TCP/IP.
--qFgkTsE6LiHkLPZw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6siurEcl9bQ0RMt0RAku8AJ9UqJPTI/cQXptaqO81qNOeN/fsKwCgrB68
w69sJrIhJiZe97imAZbs3tU=
=NdDV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qFgkTsE6LiHkLPZw--
