Looking for Netflow analysis package
philfagan at gmail.com
Fri May 17 20:12:28 UTC 2013
On May 17, 2013 1:54 PM, "John Starta" <john at starta.org> wrote:
> 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