nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:08:22 -0400


At 10:06 PM 04/03/2000 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a
confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep
it confidential?


Professional courtesy.

- paul

Current thread:

peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Gordon Cook (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
  - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Alex Rubenstein (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Alex Rubenstein (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Gordon Cook (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Gordon Cook (Apr 03)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Ryan Tucker (Apr 04)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Bill Woodcock (Apr 04)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus William Allen Simpson (Apr 04)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Christian Nielsen (Apr 04)
    - Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Henry R. Linneweh (Apr 04)

(Thread continues...)