nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?)
From: Alex Bligh <amb () gxn net>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 22:05:49 +0100
Sean Donelan wrote:
prevent them from speculating because some of their speculation will be wrong? No. Its important we get as many possibilities on the table. But we need
Well, please can we not have the infinite number of possibilities, raised mostly by those without access to any data, each trumpetted ad-nauseam on NANOG. A. Speculation != Operation B. Advice to posters on the subject of speculating on the misfortunes of other people's networks: Before posting, remember 'your network could be next'. If you are not a network operator, consider why you are writing in the first place. If you think your network is immune from being next, either (a) it's vanishingly small, (b) you have an ego problem, or (c) stop wasting time writing to NANOG & go patent your holy grail. [ & Sean, your fiber cut reports are the opposite of ill-informed speculation ] -- Alex Bligh VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation (formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
Current thread:
- Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?) Alex Bligh (May 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?) Jeff Haas (May 01)
- Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?) Sean Donelan (May 01)
- Re: Cutting to the chase (was RE: ABOVE.NET SECURITY TRUTHS?) Alex Bligh (May 01)