Question of privacy with reassigned resources

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Thu Aug 5 13:17:17 UTC 2010

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT, William Herrin said:

> It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
> but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
> constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.

Right.  The point is that by the same "what is the personal gain" standard, it
isn't obvious that redacted == fraud by definition. If I have an alternate
physical mailbox and a redacted electronic address for the exact same reason
(privacy and security), how is one fraudulent and the other not?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list