On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:06:54PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Interesting you should bring this up.
Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep it confidential?
And I found that forward very interesting, as we did not get that info and its very valuable for us to know.
Also, it's not hard to see this:
route-server.exodus.net>sho ip bgp 38.0.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 7807819 Paths: (8 available, best #6) Not advertised to any peer 1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39) 209.1.220.107 from 209.1.220.107 (209.1.220.107) Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate Community: 1239:1110 3967:31337
(anyone else notice the comedy of '31337'?)
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:
At 09:27 PM 04/03/2000 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 To: Notify Subject: Exodus Customer Confidential Communication
Gordon,
Does the word "confidential" elude you?
- paul
-- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073