AOL Non-Lameness

Rick Kunkel kunkel at w-link.net
Mon Oct 2 22:39:27 UTC 2006


On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Joseph S D Yao wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:53:56PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> ...
> > Drew the attention of a friend at AOL to this and got a reply quoted
> > below - this was apparently an issue at AOL's end. Thanks to AOL for
> > quickly acting to fix this.
> > 
> > I've been asked by my friend to post this below
> > 
> > srs
> > 
> > [quote]
> > 
> > We found a problem with the way URL's were being identified and have
> > undergone steps to correct it.  In the interim, the rule change has
> > been backed out pending further testing.  Thanks to all on the list.
> > 
> > [unquote]
> 
> 
> All, this seems seriously NON-lame to me.  Of course, testing and fixing
> the bug before it was put out there would have been less so.  But think
> of this!  A large company has actually admitted that it was wrong and
> backed out a problem!  Isn't this what everyone always complains SHOULD
> be done?  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)
> 
> Me, I'm always doing it, but that's just 'cause I have to.  ;-)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joe Yao
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
> 

I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly
because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid
IP-Address-Wannabe method, like:

206.555.1212

As an aside, is this something that's the norm in other places, like
commas instead of periods for decimals in other countries?  I'd hate to
sound critical if it was.  It just seems that I know a large amount of
very American people who have decided that phone numbers with periods in
them somehow look more "hip" than dashes.  I despise that.  Can you tell?
;)

--Rick Kunkel




More information about the NANOG mailing list