On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP.
Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with
a BCC.
BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On 3/14/08, Simon Lyall
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Chris Malayter wrote:
Would you ask the PC to release the minutes from the SJC nanog and
any
meeting since.
Given that the pc last met on tuesday at lunch, I think the minutes
when
released will prove to be a poor source the sort
On Feb 24, 2008, at 4:19 AM, vijay gill wrote:
I would like the voice my support for the peering bof, it is by far
the most entertaining item at nanog. You cannot see this much level
of fail in one place, and for this reason alone, not only should it
continue, the hours should be
On Aug 8, 2007, at 2:11 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
If you don't like the rules- then change the damned protocol. Stop
just doing whatever you want and then complaining when other people
disagree with you.
I think this last part is the key.
On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
All things being equal (which they're usually not) you could use
the ACK
response time of the TCP handshake if they've got TCP DNS resolution
available. Though again most don't for security reasons...
Then most are incredibly stupid.
Those
On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers
to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their
real
name.
I'd have to disagree; I think there may be more people
701 - 706 of 706 matches
Mail list logo
