On May 17, 2013 1:54 PM, "John Starta" <john@starta.org> wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:22 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said:
He DOES NOT need a 260 word signature (see below!) to make sure he does not get UCE from posting to NANOG.
Actually, I think Thomas Cannon was making the opposite point - that if he's going to spam us all with a 260 word disclaimer, it could have been expanded to 263 words and add 'No cold calls'. Or just have that and lose the other 260 words that make absolutely no sense on a NANOG posting.
Do you believe that Brent wrote the disclaimer attached to his message? Despite y/our opinions of such disclaimers, legal counsel in some companies still mandate their automatic attachment on all outbound messages. The only means of avoiding them is to subscribe to mailing lists from a personal e-mail account. Unfortunately these companies usually also have policies prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail accounts from company owned resources which can minimize the usefulness of some lists. In other words, just because we might work for "enlightened" companies doesn't mean all our colleagues can or do.
------ philfagan@gmail.com wrote: ------------ From: Phil Fagan <philfagan@gmail.com> Well put. ---------------------------------------- One, you're both missing the point. Do you think a sales droid that'll scrape a technical mailing list like NANOG for cold calls will respect whatever crap is put into a .sig? Don't answer. It's rhetorical... Two, "Unfortunately these companies usually also have policies prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail accounts from company owned resources". So don't. Set up an SSH tunnel over port 80 to your home server and access your non-paragraph-sized-signature email account from home. There's a million ways to do things and still follow corporate rules... scot