Out of office/vacation messages

Sun Jan 4 21:16:03 UTC 2004

1.	MTA is unlikely to create a user-agent header (unless it's really
	broken).  Stephen's comments seemed to be directed at MUA where
	the initial statement was about MTA.  I, frankly, agree that no
	self-respecting network operator runs an MTA on M$W, but, I also
	feel there are a lot of network operators that demonstrate little
	self respect by running M$W MTAs.

2.	I do understand that there are a variety of reasons someone may feel
	that they _HAVE_ to run am M$W MUA, and, for those people, I feel
	sympathy and encourage them to join the resistance.

3.	Vacation messages you see would also be from people on nanog-post,
	since, if you aren't on nanog-post, your vacation message will
	get dropped and not be posted to the list.

Owen


--On Friday, January 2, 2004 11:31 AM -0500 Joe Abley <jabley at isc.org> 
wrote:

>
>
> On 2 Jan 2004, at 10:44, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
>>>  - run on Windows,
>>> Oops, I see your problem.  No self-respecting network operator runs
>>> any
>>> M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
>>
>> This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least that's what I see in
>> various
>> meetings and from the user-agent headers)
>
> I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little
> broken. Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend
> meetings, and those that do don't necessarily provide a representative
> distribution (of any kind).
>
> Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post;
> I am told the nanog list is much bigger.
>
>
> Joe
>


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040104/58b1c097/attachment.sig>