My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

Fri Apr 26 21:39:14 UTC 2019

I respect the viewpoints of those who made comments about your sig, but I
do not agree.

There are many things to be annoyed about. I don’t think your email
signature is one of them.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 17:16 Ross Tajvar <ross at tajvar.io> wrote:

> I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't
> on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I
> did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few
> people who spoke up share this opinion.
>
> While I don't feel it's appropriate for people to complain about something
> so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional
> setting, apparently we're doing it today.
>
> I don't like email signatures in general, but since you asked for
> suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most
> relevant/important.
>
> On another note: I don't think you need credentials to be taken seriously
> here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not
> have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials,
> or if anyone else had posted it. I don't recognize the names of most of the
> "top talkers" or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they
> are network operators of some sort.
>
> I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences re: your background.
> Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect
> others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that.
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:01 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <
> amitchell at isipp.com> wrote:
>
>> Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything
>> about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after
>> all)..but I'd meant to include this:
>>
>>
>> Case in point:  This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I
>> had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to
>> violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how
>> many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the
>> rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a
>> troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which
>> would have take up far more space than my .sig :-(
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <
>> amitchell at isipp.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig
>> here, it is now an issue of contention.  (Well, 3 people probably does not
>> contention make, but still...).
>> >
>> > However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me
>> address why I have all of that info in there:
>> >
>> > Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least
>> those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just
>> "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet
>> issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-)  Over the years I've
>> found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be
>> reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but
>> that I actually do know what I'm talking about.
>> >
>> > I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our
>> industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based
>> on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times
>> on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when
>> I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer  ;-)).
>> >
>> > I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off).
>> >
>> > Anne
>> >
>> > [This .sig space open to suggestions.]
>> >
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190426/3343ec56/attachment.html>