list, sorry for this but this is getting a little annoying. I've tried sending Randy email without luck.. think i'm black listed by his kit, so if someone would kindly forward this to him… Randy, I'm not trying to be difficult or annoy you. Please stop sending me this email which is considered spam by most. 30 messages of with the same unsolicited content is spam. I understand you do not like a signature which 'seems' to contain legal jargon. I understand you know everything about my environment and the policies of my company which I do not define. I undertand you would like me to use gmail and violate my company policy. I don't expect _anything_ from you, but i would appreciate it if you could take some of your apparent talent and put some logic into your proc mail recipe or whatever it is you use to to generate this message. avoid responding with this spam message every time i post to a list you happen to be on. The email was not directed to you directly. should take about someone with your skill set very little effort. thank you. greg On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc.
i do not accept such email. my mail user agent detected a legal notice when i was opening your mail, and automatically deleted it. so do not expect further response.
yes, i know your mail environment automatically added the legal notice. well, my mail environment automatically detected it, deleted it, and sent this message to you. so don't expect a lot of sympathy.
and if you choose to work for some enterprise clueless enough to think that they can force this silliness on the world, use gmail, hotmail, ...
randy
-- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.
On 1/12/2011 8:04 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
list, sorry for this but this is getting a little annoying. I've tried sending Randy email without luck.. think i'm black listed by his kit, so if someone would kindly forward this to him…
Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy out. Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy to set up a script such as Randy has. You don't want to be annoyed? Lose the disclaimer, use a different email address, or filter Randy out. This is NOT the first time you've complained about this (although we know, for sure, that Randy is going to send this off, automagically, to anyone that has the silly disclaimer thing going for them). Get over it. Please don't post on this again. Thanks in advance. -- Amor fati. Vale. (Seneca)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Lynda wrote:
On 1/12/2011 8:04 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
list, sorry for this but this is getting a little annoying. I've tried sending Randy email without luck.. think i'm black listed by his kit, so if someone would kindly forward this to him�
Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy out. Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy to set up a script such as Randy has.
You don't want to be annoyed? Lose the disclaimer, use a different email address, or filter Randy out. This is NOT the first time you've complained about this (although we know, for sure, that Randy is going to send this off, automagically, to anyone that has the silly disclaimer thing going for them). Get over it. Please don't post on this again. Thanks in advance.
While I agree that the disclaimers are annoying, I also recognize that: 1. Many companies have policies that require them to append those disclaimers to every outgoing email message, and the people who post to NANOG often don't have any control over that policy. Debating on this list whether those policies are right or wrong really isn't constructive. 2. Some companies have very strict policies against unauthorized surfing on company time, and checking a gmail account could fall under their definition of unauthorized surfing, even if the purpose of checking said gmail account is to try to resolve a work issue without offending someone's procmail filters with your company's auto-disclaimer. Debating on this list whether those policies are right or wrong really isn't constructive either. That said, sending the "You sent me a message with a disclaimer that I do not accept and have thrown in the bitbucket" response back to NANOG, for the enjoyment of the other 10,000+ people on the list is even more annoying.... This will be my only post to this particular tangent of the original thread. jms
my bad list, i'll stay on topic in the future and ensure i keep personal messages out of here and your inbox. bad bad greg… interesting how brain dead and un respectful i am till sufficiently caffeinated. On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Lynda wrote:
On 1/12/2011 8:04 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
list, sorry for this but this is getting a little annoying. I've tried sending Randy email without luck.. think i'm black listed by his kit, so if someone would kindly forward this to him…
Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy out. Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy to set up a script such as Randy has.
You don't want to be annoyed? Lose the disclaimer, use a different email address, or filter Randy out. This is NOT the first time you've complained about this (although we know, for sure, that Randy is going to send this off, automagically, to anyone that has the silly disclaimer thing going for them). Get over it. Please don't post on this again. Thanks in advance.
-- Amor fati. Vale. (Seneca)
-- This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message may not be that of the organization.
Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy out. Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy to set up a script such as Randy has.
disclaimers used to be against nanog list policy. dunno about now. but whomever does not have much sympathy from me. randy
On 12/01/11 11:05 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, here it is. Perhaps you might consider getting a gmail or other account, and posting on NANOG from there. Either that, or filter Randy out. Personally, I find those silly disclaimers annoying, but am far too lazy to set up a script such as Randy has. disclaimers used to be against nanog list policy.
Randy, If you want to cite list policy, let's start by noting that it's a clear violation of the nanog list AUP to setup an autoresponder reply to list email[1], no matter if the autoresponder replies to the list or just to the poster. You must whitelist email from the list before applying an autoresponder. If you don't want to see the disclaimer-laden emails, then you can whitelist, then send posts with disclaimers (along with all other posts you don't care to read) to dev/null. OTOH, there is nothing in the AUP about disclaimers. Disclaimers, top posting, excessive quoting, etc. are discouraged (considered poor netiquette) but not outright forbidden. jc [1] http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/index.php 8) Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster are prohibited.
Le mercredi 12 janvier 2011 à 11:41 -0800, JC Dill a écrit : <snip/>
Randy,
If you want to cite list policy, let's start by noting that it's a clear violation of the nanog list AUP to setup an autoresponder reply to list email[1], no matter if the autoresponder replies to the list or just to the poster. You must whitelist email from the list before applying an autoresponder. If you don't want to see the disclaimer-laden emails, then you can whitelist, then send posts with disclaimers (along with all other posts you don't care to read) to dev/null.
OTOH, there is nothing in the AUP about disclaimers. Disclaimers, top posting, excessive quoting, etc. are discouraged (considered poor netiquette) but not outright forbidden.
Either way, a 15-50 or more lines legal notification style appendix to a mail in an informal operation's forum... ... seems at the very best... to be of... bad taste... (to me). (Who's reading these? :)) Cheers, mh <snip/>
I was fired from eBay several years ago for posting to NANOG trying to help others deal with the dDoS issues of those days, nothing said was fair for termination IMO. Using a personal account may be prudent. Now I hardly ever even post. On 01/12/2011 03:17 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Le mercredi 12 janvier 2011 à 11:41 -0800, JC Dill a écrit : <snip/>
Randy,
If you want to cite list policy, let's start by noting that it's a clear violation of the nanog list AUP to setup an autoresponder reply to list email[1], no matter if the autoresponder replies to the list or just to the poster. You must whitelist email from the list before applying an autoresponder. If you don't want to see the disclaimer-laden emails, then you can whitelist, then send posts with disclaimers (along with all other posts you don't care to read) to dev/null.
OTOH, there is nothing in the AUP about disclaimers. Disclaimers, top posting, excessive quoting, etc. are discouraged (considered poor netiquette) but not outright forbidden. Either way, a 15-50 or more lines legal notification style appendix to a mail in an informal operation's forum... ... seems at the very best... to be of... bad taste... (to me). (Who's reading these? :))
Cheers,
mh <snip/>
participants (7)
-
Greg Whynott -
Jason LeBlanc -
JC Dill -
Justin M. Streiner -
Lynda -
Michael Hallgren -
Randy Bush