AS Leakage

Thu Apr 5 01:38:18 UTC 2001

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Darrin Walton wrote:

>   |+ 
>   |+ As someone mentioned previously this week, many of the folks are posting
>   |+ from email addresses that give absolutely no hint at to their employment.
> 
> 	I didn't know that we were required to post from our "work" email
> address, or that we had to share with _you_ where we worked.  A lot of us
> don't feel like subscribing to _any_ mailing list with our work email, as
> we already get enough mail there (I can't speak for you though).

Did I say anything about requirements or anyone sharing employment history
with me?  I simply restated a previous observation which is that many list
participants post from someplace other than their work email address.

I got bombarded with emails from people because they ASSUMED that I knew
someone worked for 3967.  I didn't.

> 
> 	Do you purpose that everyone now send a email to the list, stating
> who they are, where they work at, and what they do?  I think not.
> 

I propose that you treat me in the manner in which you expect to be
treated.  That is all I propose.  The last time I checked, it wasn't 
me who pissed in your cereal.

>   |+ Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about
>   |+ his having multiple paths into UU.  Please forgive me for assuming.  I
>   |+ also assumed that 209 would not leak _65..._ into the global table.
> 
> 	So, you were under the belief that a rather large service
> provider, only had one connection to UUNet?  How many paths do you,
> yourself have into UU?  Are they anything > DS3?
> 

Did you bother reading the post prior to replying?  Is English not your
primary language?  Is there some other reason why you don't understand
"Had I known he was with Exodus, there would have been no question about
his having multiple paths..."?

As for paths into 701, we three.  All of them > DS3.

Have a nice day Darrin.

---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc