nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:47:23 -0400
On Mar 15, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Charles Wyble wrote:
Can we please get this thread closed or something?
Maybe we should start the nanog-law mailing list.
Jim Popovitch wrote:On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 23:17, Joe Greco <jgreco () ns sol net> wrote:"Looking around" Rockefeller Center generally isn't a crime."Looking around" where you're in my back yard and peeking in the windows is, at a minimum, trespass, and if our local cops notice you doing it, youcan expect that you may find yourself ... severely inconvenienced.There is no "freedom to look around" on private property, despite what youappear to think.Isn't Rockefeller Center private property? ;-) -Jim P.
Current thread:
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0?, (continued)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Bill Stewart (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Charles (Mar 13)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? Rob Evans (Mar 12)
- Re: Dynamic IP log retention = 0? JC Dill (Mar 12)
- 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? JC Dill (Mar 14)