nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:08:14 -0700
Chris Adams wrote:
Do you think Covad would respond to a DMCA complaint like that?
That's actually the one thing that would make sense of this - that they *do* purge the logs fast enough that they could reply to a DMCA complaint by saying "sorry, we don't have logs".
The question is, in doing so are they also purging the logs so fast they can't deal with customers that cause problems for Covad itself? If so, then they probably aren't purging the logs this fast, they just said so to avoid having to deal with their customers that are posing problems for others, and they probably would respond quite differently if it were a legal matter (where lying equals perjury) rather than just a "complaint".
jc
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Joe Greco (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Jim Popovitch (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles Wyble (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Marshall Eubanks (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? William Allen Simpson (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Martin Hannigan (Mar 15)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Bogstad (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Neil (Mar 14)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 14)