Why not NANOG....
mo at uunet.uu.net
Tue Oct 17 15:37:52 UTC 1995
My point is eluding you...
Spam is in the mouth of the taster (to blast the Bard).
We do not need consensus for *me* to view the continued barage
of the NANOG list with this topic as a clear example of spamming.
So we have a bit of a quandry, don't we? Who and how many get to decide
what is Spam and what is Treat? (an alternate brand of similar
"luncheon meat" for the non-US enduring this) Any attempt to
make rules must address this first and foremost. And I humbly
suggest that such an effort will go onto the rocks right there.
As for why not NANOG?
I have no interest in pursuing this but also have on intention of
dropping off NANOG until this dies down. Further, I don't
see a groundswell of support by North American Network Operators
(everything but the Group - and that's the point).
If com-priv wishes to grind the grist of this topic until
the particles are invisible, please, be my guest. Com-priv has
a long history of chewing bones 'til the marrow is long-gone.
Just please take the bread and mayonaise elsewhere.
PS - appologies to NANOG for carboning on this.
It will be my last one on this topic.
More information about the NANOG