nanog mailing list archives
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:59:37 +0530
I hardly ever see you say something wrong about net neutrality or anything else :). No, other, far more usual suspects in mind here. On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell () isipp com> wrote:
Suresh wrote:The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately(andadd professors of law to this already toxic mix)Ahem. I resemble that remark. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO/President Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
-- --srs (iPad)
Current thread:
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity, (continued)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Matt Palmer (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Richard Bennett (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Matt Palmer (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Owen DeLong (Jul 28)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Richard Bennett (Jul 27)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Larry Sheldon (Jul 29)
- Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jul 26)