nanog mailing list archives
Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:00:47 -0700
--- ronald.dasilva () twcable com wrote: On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful" in what country? No one's going to delete all copies. Blah, blah, blah...
I'll happily send your question to my IT and legal folks. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Or use another email address which you have control over to shut up grumpy `ol guys like me or get your questions answered by others that filter out such nonsense... ;-) scott
Current thread:
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing, (continued)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Kradorex Xeron (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Ron da Silva (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Martin Hannigan (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Scott Weeks (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Ron da Silva (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Jay Hennigan (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Warren Kumari (May 02)
- RE: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing andrew2 (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Warren Kumari (May 02)
- E-mail addresses and signatures [was: RE: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing] Steve Gibbard (May 04)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Ron da Silva (May 02)
- Re: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Scott Weeks (May 02)
- RE: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing Brandon Butterworth (May 04)