Looking for Netflow analysis package
john at starta.org
Fri May 17 17:02:53 UTC 2013
On May 17, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:22 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said:
>> You haven't been here long have you...
>> He DOES NOT need a 260 word signature (see below!) to make sure he does
>> not get UCE from posting to NANOG.
> Actually, I think Thomas Cannon was making the opposite point - that if
> he's going to spam us all with a 260 word disclaimer, it could have been
> expanded to 263 words and add 'No cold calls'. Or just have that and lose
> the other 260 words that make absolutely no sense on a NANOG posting.
Do you believe that Brent wrote the disclaimer attached to his message? Despite y/our opinions of such disclaimers, legal counsel in some companies still mandate their automatic attachment on all outbound messages. The only means of avoiding them is to subscribe to mailing lists from a personal e-mail account. Unfortunately these companies usually also have policies prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail accounts from company owned resources which can minimize the usefulness of some lists. In other words, just because we might work for "enlightened" companies doesn't mean all our colleagues can or do.
More information about the NANOG