Re: net.terrorism

I can't resist trying to sum this up: Somebody wants to talk to an ORBS server and has Abovenet transit. They don't like being caught in the orbs/abovenet mess. So rather than a) getting a new provider b) getting another provider and fixing the local routing to use them to ORBS the person opted for c) send a misleading flame message to NANOG Operational issues of enforcing trafic delivery policies for customers has been discussed till it's dead. Everyone knows where they stand, and anyone who does it has is as part of their service agreement. As has been pointed out, this is not a subject that will engender any sympathy in this group. does anything else need to be said? If not, let's let this die. jerry