nanog mailing list archives
Re: NSP-SEC
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:52:25 -0400
On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:46 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
Few people actually care about nsp-sec so what exactly are you getting at?
I might argue the "few" comment, but I think it's better not to reply to Guillaume so people who are smart enough to not see his posts (which would be quite a bit more than a "few") will not be force to see them. Although I have to admit I am impressed at how quickly he has managed to piss off, alienate, and pretty much guarantee lasting animosity from, well, pretty much every significant person on the 'Net. Perhaps we should lump Guillaume in with $HE_WHO_MUST_NOT_BE_NAMED[*]? -- TTFN, patrick [*] Lest you receive a bazillion unicast messages CC'ed to a bazillion other people who don't care.
Current thread:
- NSP-SEC Guillaume FORTAINE (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC William Pitcock (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC David Conrad (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC Guillaume FORTAINE (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC William Pitcock (Mar 18)
- Re: NSP-SEC Paul WALL (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Leo Bicknell (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Brielle Bruns (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Jorge Amodio (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Michael Dillon (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC Leo Bicknell (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC John Kristoff (Mar 19)
- Re: NSP-SEC William Pitcock (Mar 19)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: NSP-SEC William Pitcock (Mar 18)