[Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Martin Hannigan]

On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov <alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > > To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
> > > quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.
> >
> > In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with
> > this autoresponder policy.
> Please don't confuzzle things. Was it an email *to* the list or was it
> private email to J.Oquendo?

Is his mail bouncing or not? You seem to like to apply standards to
things based on how you want to react. So far, I've been reading
Dillon, Bush, Oquendo, whine about being asked to be on topic. We've
had agreement on Bush's bad behavoir here before, Dillons as well, not
Oquendo, but he over-reacted based on a message that he did not see
which he didn't know about -- since he didn't see it. To date, nobody
has been warned. :-) It's amazing that challenging someones validity
causes such a ruckus.

>
> It doesn't matter what it was in response *to*. Private email between list
> members is not covered by AUP. In case this still isn't clear, if I send a
> private email response to someone in response to their list post that
> contains off-topic information, that's not the AUP violation. To insist
> that any email between list members need to comply to AUP is silly.

Um. That's what happens when someone elses mailer responds to yours
and mail doesn't route through Merit's mailer. It's conversation
between your assets and mine. If Merit were somehow involved, you
might be right.

To the list, as a result of a list post, etc. They work exactly the
same as far as I can tell.

-M<