Scott: Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit. Peter Jansen C&W Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 15:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net> To: PETER JANSEN <peter.jansen@cw.net> CC: nanog@merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: ratios I read the cw and uu examples. In the case of 1.5 to 1 which seems really close but I'm assuming this means I can send you 1.5 to every one received. Does this also apply in the inverse ie uunet sends back to me only 1.5 to my 1 or is this less critical? On Tue, 7 May 2002, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Scott:
Traffic ratios are one of the many parameters that ensure equality and a mutual benefit between networks in a settlement free peering relationship.
Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering. It will provide you with some information on peering with large networks.
Regards
Peter Jansen Global Peering Cable & Wireless
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu Delivered-to: nanog@merit.edu Subject: ratios
I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer? I have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring equal use of the peer?
Thanks
Scott
At 05:50 PM 5/7/2002 -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Scott:
Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider???
I would say that both, which is why I personally feel that ratios are misapplied in a lot of instances. ( Some providers feel that it benefits neither the eyeball or the content provider to peer, they would like both to pay them for transit ) BTW Peter, thanks for killing our peering sessions. I guess our eyeballs were of no benefit to your content providers? *shrug* -Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
Chris I'm with you this to a point. It seems to me that balance is reasonable to a point but some of these numbers are to close. It seems more a reasonable to peer to reduce the network distance covered and provide a better end user experience than to use transit which may cover greater distances and in the end use more resources. I totally understand wanting to sell transit however and make money and some levels this is the most logical and best practice but on others simply because someone is not with in themagic ratio not peer. It seems to me that many other concerns are far more important ie trouble resolution response time, proper route policy and just solid technical ability. I'd rather peer with someone who won't cause more work for me. I realize none of these issues are cut and dry but it seemed odd to me. On Tue, 7 May 2002, Chris Parker wrote:
At 05:50 PM 5/7/2002 -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Scott:
Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider???
I would say that both, which is why I personally feel that ratios are misapplied in a lot of instances.
( Some providers feel that it benefits neither the eyeball or the content provider to peer, they would like both to pay them for transit )
BTW Peter, thanks for killing our peering sessions. I guess our eyeballs were of no benefit to your content providers? *shrug*
-Chris -- \\\|||/// \ StarNet Inc. \ Chris Parker \ ~ ~ / \ WX *is* Wireless! \ Director, Engineering | @ @ | \ http://www.starnetwx.net \ (847) 963-0116 oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------ \ Wholesale Internet Services - http://www.megapop.net
SG> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 15:46:29 -0700 (PDT) SG> From: Scott Granados SG> It seems more a reasonable to peer to reduce the network SG> distance covered and provide a better end user experience SG> than to use transit which may cover greater distances and in SG> the end use more resources. But it's much more fun to bill your customers for one direction, and another network for the other. *flame suit on* The discussion is age old, yet opinions still vary... -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
This makes for some great logic. If you really believe that traffic in either direction can be equally beneficial, then why require ratios at all? If on the other hand, you believe that content is less valuable than eyeballs, wouldn't eyeball providers be the most valuable of peers? Except in the case of mismanagement (such as a congested peer), a peer benefits everyone. Why does it matter that a peer benefit both sides in exactly the same ways? Yes there are legitimate arguments in the favor of not accepting smaller peers. If they're all eyeballs and only in one location you have to haul traffic there that you otherwise would have dropped locally on one of the bigger peers that they buy transit from. But if they can meet the locations, I don't see a legitimate argument for ratios. Perhaps what you need to do is consider distance to the egress point above AS Path length. :) Then we comes to those little things that are just there to try and keep people from qualifying to peer. You can't be serious about requiring 5000 routes can you? Way to encourage aggregation, really. When it comes down to it, someone on your network has PAID YOU to BRING them traffic as well as to deliver it. If you can't do that then I'm sure they can find someone who can. As for the "if they can't peer, they'll buy transit" argument, I find that equally negated by the "if they won't peer, why should I buy their transit" argument. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Richard, I believe you also missed must operate a US-wide OC48 network. must exchange at 4 locations over OC3 or above with at least 45Mb traffic per location and most friendly of all, you must supply a detailed network topology and current operational capacities.. why not ask for 5 year business plan and bank numbers too .. and how about next weeks lottery numbers? Steve On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
Ratios are normally applied to either direction, since it is not totally understood who benefits from what traffic direction. Who benefits: the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
This makes for some great logic. If you really believe that traffic in either direction can be equally beneficial, then why require ratios at all? If on the other hand, you believe that content is less valuable than eyeballs, wouldn't eyeball providers be the most valuable of peers? Except in the case of mismanagement (such as a congested peer), a peer benefits everyone. Why does it matter that a peer benefit both sides in exactly the same ways?
Yes there are legitimate arguments in the favor of not accepting smaller peers. If they're all eyeballs and only in one location you have to haul traffic there that you otherwise would have dropped locally on one of the bigger peers that they buy transit from. But if they can meet the locations, I don't see a legitimate argument for ratios. Perhaps what you need to do is consider distance to the egress point above AS Path length. :)
Then we comes to those little things that are just there to try and keep people from qualifying to peer. You can't be serious about requiring 5000 routes can you? Way to encourage aggregation, really.
When it comes down to it, someone on your network has PAID YOU to BRING them traffic as well as to deliver it. If you can't do that then I'm sure they can find someone who can. As for the "if they can't peer, they'll buy transit" argument, I find that equally negated by the "if they won't peer, why should I buy their transit" argument.
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 12:43:39AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Richard, I believe you also missed
must operate a US-wide OC48 network.
Personally I would go with "must operate a network with sufficient capacity to support the traffic being exchanged". Unless I was selling US-wide OC48s of course.
must exchange at 4 locations over OC3 or above with at least 45Mb traffic per location
Not an entirely unreasonable goal. But then we come to bizaare ones like: D. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that its routes are not announced to Cable & Wireless from another network. What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
and most friendly of all, you must supply a detailed network topology and current operational capacities.. why not ask for 5 year business plan and bank numbers too .. and how about next weeks lottery numbers?
I don't suppose they'd take too kindly to an ascii diagram which just happens to resemble a middle finger, would they? :) Oh BTW on the subject of peering, has anyone noticed that AOL has cut off a large number of transit providers and reportedly a number of content hoster peers (though I havn't seen this first-hand) in recent days. I guess when you have the largest eyeball population your only remaining goal is to have the largest content population too. Something to think about. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RAS> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:42:14 -0400 RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen RAS> D. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that its RAS> routes are not announced to Cable & Wireless from RAS> another network. RAS> RAS> What exactly is this supposed to accomplish? IANAL, but that doesn't smell right. Seems sort of... anti- competitive... I guess if one is trying to meet the traffic ratio, one could reroute certain traffic through an intermediary. Maybe some nets tried this, met the minimum/geo/ratio requirements, and there just _had_ to be another way to depeer? Or maybe they want to peer with ASNs who don't purchase transit? Perhaps they want the ability to quickly *coughpsilastsummer* depeer *coughexoduspeersrecently* anyone as they please? (Can't think of anything more serious at the moment.) I guess people must vote with wallet and local-pref? I've joked that we'll peer with anyone who hooks me up with a hot, geeky gal. Now I begin to wonder just how kooky that idea is. ;-) RAS> I don't suppose they'd take too kindly to an ascii diagram RAS> which just happens to resemble a middle finger, would RAS> they? :) "Hey, what are all these packets with .|.. ` in the header?!" ;-) Just wait until IPv6 when people forge source packets with octets that spell obscene messages when interpretted as ASCII. Or even as EBCDIC if 5|<r1pt |<1dd135 get interested in history. ;-) -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Wed, 08 May 2002 01:08:14 -0000, "E.B. Dreger" said:
I guess if one is trying to meet the traffic ratio, one could reroute certain traffic through an intermediary. Maybe some nets tried this, met the minimum/geo/ratio requirements, and there just _had_ to be another way to depeer?
I misread this as "minimum/ego/ratio", and suddenly it made a LOT more sense. ;)
Once upon a time, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> said:
D. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that its routes are not announced to Cable & Wireless from another network.
What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
Doesn't that mean that, if you had a failure peering with C&W, you'd be cut off (even if you were buying transit from someone else like UUNet for example)? Seems like that would give C&W extra leverage in a peering dispute, since, by the peering agreement, your C&W peering connections would be your _only_ connections to the C&W network. You can't buy transit that _might_ get you to C&W's network if you want to peer with them.
Oh BTW on the subject of peering, has anyone noticed that AOL has cut off a large number of transit providers and reportedly a number of content hoster peers (though I havn't seen this first-hand) in recent days. I
We recently received an email from AOL with the Subject "AOL email concerns for hiwaay.net". It had some vague statistics: Total percentage of messages bounced: 0 Total percentage of bounces accepted: 45% Total number of AOL member complaints: 0 It then went on to say that if we didn't respond in 24 hours, we may be blocked from AOL. I responded asking for more information, but never heard back (and they didn't block us). I didn't see many AOL bounces in our logs, and I'm not sure what "percentage of bounces accepted" means (especially when the percentage of messages bounced is zero). Anybody know what they mean by this? -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Chris Adams wrote:
We recently received an email from AOL with the Subject "AOL email concerns for hiwaay.net". It had some vague statistics:
Total percentage of messages bounced: 0 Total percentage of bounces accepted: 45% Total number of AOL member complaints: 0
It then went on to say that if we didn't respond in 24 hours, we may be blocked from AOL. I responded asking for more information, but never
Atlantic.net got the same thing. I sent a similar "WTF are you talking about", though not worded quite like that, message in reply. It took them a week and a half to reply to my reply. Their reply was almost as vague as the original message. What I got from it is they are looking at automating spam reporting and want us to setup or simply provide them with an address they can configure their system to automatically forward complaints to. Why they couldn't just say that in the first message rather than sounding all hostile is beyond me. Maybe they've got a new abuse dept. director who's got a serious drug problem. They also completely ignored the message I included with my reply mentioning their netscape.com webmail spam issue and asking what they could do to stop that abuse. Has anyone else tried capturing copies of mail with: :0c: * ^Received: from .*mx\.aol\.com * ^From:.*netscape\.net * ^Received: from netscape\.com .*webmail\.aol\.com netscapespam to see what you get? I did it for several days and got >90% spam...50 megabytes of it. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
must exchange at 4 locations over OC3 or above with at least 45Mb traffic per location
Not an entirely unreasonable goal. But then we come to bizaare ones like:
D. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that its routes are not announced to Cable & Wireless from another network.
What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
I can only assume it means that CW consider themselves a Tier1 and they will only accept routes from other peering only networks ie Tier1. This always interests me, the kind of unofficial rules that other networks striving for global superiority all seem to adopt. Surely if a group of operators agree together that they will run the market and all other players will buy from them then that cant be legal.. I guess its all slightly too loose tho... The opposite rule to this from local providers would be that you set your BGP route maps to prefer any routes that dont go over a large network (CW) .. thereby feeding the other more friendly networks (to take another example UU are arguably the largest network and yet they will peer with anyone regionally doing a fairly small amount of traffic...) Whilst doing this may be a little militant you probably dont actually need to.. not peering must reduce total traffic anyway: on the basis that you arent a CW customer and chances are the routes you have installed to your destination dont go over CW's network then they dont get the traffic anyway.. and the other networks who do peer win. Steve
and most friendly of all, you must supply a detailed network topology and current operational capacities.. why not ask for 5 year business plan and bank numbers too .. and how about next weeks lottery numbers?
I don't suppose they'd take too kindly to an ascii diagram which just happens to resemble a middle finger, would they? :)
Oh BTW on the subject of peering, has anyone noticed that AOL has cut off a large number of transit providers and reportedly a number of content hoster peers (though I havn't seen this first-hand) in recent days. I guess when you have the largest eyeball population your only remaining goal is to have the largest content population too. Something to think about.
> UU are arguably the largest network and yet they will peer with ^^^^^^^ > anyone regionally doing a fairly small amount of traffic...) You misspelled "because". -Bill
On Wed, 8 May 2002, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> UU are arguably the largest network and yet they will peer with ^^^^^^^ > anyone regionally doing a fairly small amount of traffic...)
You misspelled "because".
-Bill
;) .. altho I missed this from http://www.cw.com/th_11.asp?ID=us_10 "Our backbone isn't just a route to the Internet, it is the Internet." mine too!
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:53:57AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
D. The applicant shall take steps to ensure that its routes are not announced to Cable & Wireless from another network.
What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
I can only assume it means that CW consider themselves a Tier1 and they will only accept routes from other peering only networks ie Tier1.
I'm still trying to figure out if that's what they mean or not. My first interpretation would be that you just have to have a transit provider who will let you filter announcements to certain destination. Yeah they would have to be a tier 1 or have upstreams who would also honor "don't announce", but thats not particularly hard to accomplish. If you take their statement at face value, that either don't know how to use localpref, or they don't like path redundancy. If you try to look for hidden meaning, you come away thinking that they want you to be a tier 1, and just couldn't find a better way to state it. If there is a more reasonable interpretation, I must be missing it, so perhaps someone can fill me in.
This always interests me, the kind of unofficial rules that other networks striving for global superiority all seem to adopt. Surely if a group of operators agree together that they will run the market and all other players will buy from them then that cant be legal.. I guess its all slightly too loose tho...
Wasn't the reason all these "big networks" started coming out with actual peering policies at all to keep the DOJ from going down that exact road?
The opposite rule to this from local providers would be that you set your BGP route maps to prefer any routes that dont go over a large network (CW) .. thereby feeding the other more friendly networks (to take another example UU are arguably the largest network and yet they will peer with anyone regionally doing a fairly small amount of traffic...)
Depending on your ratios, this may or may not be a good thing. But honestly, I'd say that the traffic exchanged with CW by the people who actually do peer is going down steadily, and it may not be worth your trouble at all. With a open peering policy to anyone you can reasonably reach, traffic to 3561 is easily 1/10th of traffic to 701. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RAS> Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:21:11 -0400 RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen RAS> If you take their statement at face value, that either don't RAS> know how to use localpref, or they don't like path RAS> redundancy. If you try to look for hidden meaning, you come RAS> away thinking that they want you to be a tier 1, and just RAS> couldn't find a better way to state it. I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't grok local-pref. Considering all the nice knobs that they provide... I'm sure they have enough clue to give downstreams higher local-pref than peers unless there's some special reason for otherwise. -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
In a message written on Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
What I find unfortunate about most of the published peering policies is that they don't seem to take the spirit of your statement to heart. Most of the published peering requirements are absolute. These are the N areas we find important, and our definition of all of them, please meet them all or you get nothing. What these requirements are doing are forcing a /business model/, in effect increasing your own competition. Imagine two providers. One is a 100% content hosting play, the other is a 100% end user access play. In terms of ratio it will be high (10:1?), as all the content flows to the users. Neither network would be of any value without the other, and I would argue them peering is a perfect symbiotic relationship. What a peering ratio like 1.5:1 does is require them to compete. The hoster must go out and find end users, and the access provider must find some content to host. They start going after each others customers, and a price war ensues hurting both companies. The way providers insure common ratios is to insure they have similar, often overlapping customer bases. Note, none of this has anything to do with geography or cost. In my two provider network you could give either one the nationwide network, and make the other the small regional guy. The "larger cost" could fall on either network. My point is not that ratio shouldn't be used, but that it shouldn't be used in all cases. Perhaps if you have 10 criteria to evaluate a peer, it would be more reasonable to require them to meet 9 of the 10, or 8 of the 10. Allow for the fact that networks are different. Don't try to make every network look like your own, you create more competition for yourself in the end. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Here is a good point. Also something to think about. Recently I read the argument that ip space is sometimes used up by an isp by attaching it all to old machines that will answer requests to justify new arin space. Its a total improper use of the space but it is done to meet requirements. Someone in this case could create false traffic either pull or push probably most likely pull and meet the ratio but cause drastic amounts of useless traffic to be carried on the backbone. This does create far worse problems. I'd assume such a method could be determined if not done properly but still it seems that these policies whether relating to ip allocation or ratio of traffic leads to more harm than good. On Tue, 7 May 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:50:00PM -0400, PETER JANSEN wrote:
the eyball or the content provider??? But keep in mind traffic ratios are only one parameter to establish a mutially equal beneit.
What I find unfortunate about most of the published peering policies is that they don't seem to take the spirit of your statement to heart. Most of the published peering requirements are absolute. These are the N areas we find important, and our definition of all of them, please meet them all or you get nothing. What these requirements are doing are forcing a /business model/, in effect increasing your own competition.
Imagine two providers. One is a 100% content hosting play, the other is a 100% end user access play. In terms of ratio it will be high (10:1?), as all the content flows to the users. Neither network would be of any value without the other, and I would argue them peering is a perfect symbiotic relationship.
What a peering ratio like 1.5:1 does is require them to compete. The hoster must go out and find end users, and the access provider must find some content to host. They start going after each others customers, and a price war ensues hurting both companies. The way providers insure common ratios is to insure they have similar, often overlapping customer bases.
Note, none of this has anything to do with geography or cost. In my two provider network you could give either one the nationwide network, and make the other the small regional guy. The "larger cost" could fall on either network.
My point is not that ratio shouldn't be used, but that it shouldn't be used in all cases. Perhaps if you have 10 criteria to evaluate a peer, it would be more reasonable to require them to meet 9 of the 10, or 8 of the 10. Allow for the fact that networks are different. Don't try to make every network look like your own, you create more competition for yourself in the end.
SG> Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:28:40 -0700 (PDT) SG> From: Scott Granados SG> Someone in this case could create false traffic either pull SG> or push probably most likely pull and meet the ratio but It almost encourages those with eyeballs to spam, no? Maybe that's how [names deleted] meet their ratios... adjust how quickly they sign up and kick spammers. ;-) SG> cause drastic amounts of useless traffic to be carried on SG> the backbone. This does create far worse problems. I'd SG> assume such a method could be determined if not done properly You mean, like someone binding many IPs across geographically diverse locations and replaying cache traces? (Pretty sick when interconnects are reduced to the same level as people cheating those make-money-with-each-site-you-visit programs...) SG> but still it seems that these policies whether relating to ip SG> allocation or ratio of traffic leads to more harm than good. Yup. -- Eddy Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
participants (11)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Chris Adams -
Chris Parker -
E.B. Dreger -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Leo Bicknell -
PETER JANSEN -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Scott Granados -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu