RE: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing

[<andrew2 () one net>]

Warren Kumari wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > --- ronald.dasilva () twcable com wrote:
> >
> > On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
> > > > Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
> > >
> > > Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
> >
> > Both practices arguably ingenious or idiotic...
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Doesn't matter.  He doesn't want to see the .sig and it's his email
> > system.  Others do the same. 
> >
> > 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 don't think that Ron is choosing to put this .sig in his mail, some
> ugly corporate mail gateway is probably appending it for him. While
> he could spend a huge amount of time trying to explain to someone at
> Time Warner that it is a stupid thing to do, I sure he has better
> things to do...

I don't see anywhere in the NANOG charter that says we have to use our
corporate email addresses in correspondence with list.  From what I've seen,
most of us don't.  I agree 100% that trying to get $corporation to remove
the useless and annoying .sig's is like tilting at windmills.  But for the
sanity and comfort of other list users, would it be too much to ask that
people with annoying tacked-on .sig's use a personal mail account when
posting to the list?  I hear Google offers nice email accounts for a
reasonable price.

Andrew