Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible? Please let me know if you have a different experience currently. Thanks - Brian CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
no issues in Kansas City (area) via Internet2 at 12:10pm Central. On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
Thanks
- Brian
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 11:30 -0600, Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
Please let me know if you have a different experience currently.
It is up here.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? William
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post?
because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail?
f
Bingo! ;) - Brian CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail?
Bingo! ;)
That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'. (Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....) Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:13:16PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail?
Bingo! ;)
That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
Valdis: 150,000. Not 70,000. Spread across four machines and eleven partitions and 5 flash partions. Not mentioning the pool of a/v scanners, the quarantine servers, the auth server, the five webmail machines, or the OMR. :-> -- Dave ----- Nobody believed that I could build a space station here. So I built it anyway. It sank into the vortex. So I built another one. It sank into the vortex. The third station burned down, fell over then sank into the vortex. The fourth station just vanished. And the fifth station, THAT stayed!
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also innocous. Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords? Best, -M< On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail?
Bingo! ;)
That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA.
I can believe that such NDAs may exist, but I'm pretty sure I didn't sign one as a condition of subscribing to nanog. In reality, boilerplate confidentiality notices merely document the fact that a mail system is in the grip of the clueless and/or confused. R's, John
As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights.
I would be most interested in any case or statute law supporting this utterly implausible assertion. I'm aware that there is a rule among attorneys that they're not allowed to use material faxed from one to another by mistake, but since this isn't fax and we're not lawyers, it doesn't apply.
Well, sure. So don't read the notice then. The point is that rather than try to enforce agreements individually, automatically slapping the notices on is not so unreasonable all considered. While it may be annoying, its not baseless. It certaintly isn't useless in discovery. YMMV. Best, -M< On 1/9/10, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA.
I can believe that such NDAs may exist, but I'm pretty sure I didn't sign one as a condition of subscribing to nanog. In reality, boilerplate confidentiality notices merely document the fact that a mail system is in the grip of the clueless and/or confused.
R's, John
As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights.
I would be most interested in any case or statute law supporting this utterly implausible assertion. I'm aware that there is a rule among attorneys that they're not allowed to use material faxed from one to another by mistake, but since this isn't fax and we're not lawyers, it doesn't apply.
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
The point is that rather than try to enforce agreements individually, automatically slapping the notices on is not so unreasonable all considered.
While it may be annoying, its not baseless. It certaintly isn't useless in discovery.
Once again, I would be most interested in any statute or case law to support this claim. I've been involved in a lot of discovery in a lot of cases over the years, and I cannot remember a single instance where a boilerplate confidentiality notice was even noted, much less enforced. As I said:
In reality, boilerplate confidentiality notices merely document the fact that a mail system is in the grip of the clueless and/or confused.
R's, John
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also innocous.
Your attorney will likely advise you that boiler plate language between two people who have not previously agreed to honor it is unlikely to be interpreted as conferring benefit on the sender, and then invoice you for their time. Asserting privilege one does not in fact have is far from innocuous... but neither of us are lawyer's so this isn't advice.
Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords?
Best,
-M<
On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail? Bingo! ;) That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
I never said otherwise. I did say that from a liability standpoint it is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should simply ignore it. Best, -M< On 1/9/10, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also innocous.
Your attorney will likely advise you that boiler plate language between two people who have not previously agreed to honor it is unlikely to be interpreted as conferring benefit on the sender, and then invoice you for their time.
Asserting privilege one does not in fact have is far from innocuous...
but neither of us are lawyer's so this isn't advice.
Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords?
Best,
-M<
On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail? Bingo! ;) That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote: >..
is reasonable to inject it and everyone who can ignore it should simply ignore it.
"confidentiality notices" are non-innocuous for recipients who pay per kilobyte for data service, or who are frustrated by time wasted by reading the long sig. But they are such a popular fad, that it's pointless to debate their real merits, or whether a sender 'should' include a notice. Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at all. There's little point in asking for (c), where the sender usually doesn't have the option. Organizations with "corporate policy" to use a standard e-mail sig on all messages are probably blind to whether the notice is of any effect, the corp. expensive lawyers used billable time to draft the notice, so it could probably be useful, going forward: future cost = ZERO, future possible benefit/protections = large... Unless including the notice results in important messages getting bounced to sender as rejected, don't count on the sender's org to change policies, or make exceptions for list mail, even based on a NANOG discussion.... -- -J
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010, James Hess wrote:
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at all.
senders who don't have control over the matter shouldn't be using such accounts to subscribe to public mailing lists like nanog. -Dan
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at all.
Wow, are you implying that such readers are too stupid to do (c) get a Hotmail account for posting to mailing lists? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Joe Greco wrote:
Spam filter your inbox on /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.*intended recipient.*destroy.*copies/si and be done with it. The individual sender normally has no control over the matter, so their only two choices are: (a) Post with the notice, or (b) Don't post at all.
Wow, are you implying that such readers are too stupid to do (c) get a Hotmail account for posting to mailing lists?
Some of these confidentiality/security paranoid companies have firewalls that prevent employees from accessing off-company communication services[1], to prevent employees from using those services to leak confidential information. However, if you work at one of those companies, and don't have the skills or means to bypass the firewall, perhaps you should avoid posting to nanog from work for anything other than to receive help from your fellow netops during emergencies. jc [1] Blocking webmail websites, blocking IM and email ports to off-company IPs, etc.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Martin Hannigan <martin@theicelandguy.com> wrote:
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also innocous.
Martin, Actually that's not a great idea. A notice that the recipient is expected to handle information with unusual attention to confidentiality is required by law to stand out so that there isn't any ambiguity about the duties demanded of the recipient. Trade secret cases have been lost because a sender relied on the email boilerplate, the recipient produced intentionally public emails with the same boilerplate, and the recipient asserted that he had no reason to believe the particular message was any more sensitive than the sender's routine public messages. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Actually that's not a great idea. A notice that the recipient is expected to handle information with unusual attention to confidentiality is required by law to stand out so that there isn't any ambiguity about the duties demanded of the recipient. Trade secret cases have been lost because a sender relied on the email boilerplate, the recipient produced intentionally public emails with the same boilerplate, and the recipient asserted that he had no reason to believe the particular message was any more sensitive than the sender's routine public messages.
The use of the words "intended recipient" are also extremely problematic; by definition, if it is addressed to me, I can be construed as being the "intended recipient." If I then turn around and forward it to you, you are now also an "intended recipient." Nice, eh. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:54:09 CST, Joe Greco said:
The use of the words "intended recipient" are also extremely problematic; by definition, if it is addressed to me, I can be construed as being the "intended recipient." If I then turn around and forward it to you, you are now also an "intended recipient." Nice, eh.
They're trying to make their mistaken use of "reply all" our problem rather than theirs. Or selecting the wrong 'J. Smith' from their contacts list. Or any number of other dumb-ass moves we've all seen. Unfortunately, there's no good a priori way for the recipient to know that the sender has committed a major faux pax, except by actually reading the content. Of particular interest - what happens if they've botched their intended recipient, and as a result the mail bounced into my Postmaster mailbox? At that point, I'm pretty obviously *not* the intended recipient, and the sending individual better be ready to pay for the service they've actually requested in their boilerplate. I mean, I'd hate to incur costs complying with their wishes and then have to sue them to recover said costs...
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:54:09 CST, Joe Greco said:
The use of the words "intended recipient" are also extremely problematic; by definition, if it is addressed to me, I can be construed as being the "intended recipient." If I then turn around and forward it to you, you are now also an "intended recipient." Nice, eh.
They're trying to make their mistaken use of "reply all" our problem rather than theirs. Or selecting the wrong 'J. Smith' from their contacts list. Or any number of other dumb-ass moves we've all seen. Unfortunately, there's no good a priori way for the recipient to know that the sender has committed a major faux pax, except by actually reading the content.
People send me all kinds of stuff I've absolutely no interest in all the time. I have no idea how I'd tell the difference between "sender was too lazy/dumb to figure out I would have no interest but sent it anyways" and "sender mistakenly sent it to me."
Of particular interest - what happens if they've botched their intended recipient, and as a result the mail bounced into my Postmaster mailbox? At that point, I'm pretty obviously *not* the intended recipient, and the sending individual better be ready to pay for the service they've actually requested in their boilerplate. I mean, I'd hate to incur costs complying with their wishes and then have to sue them to recover said costs...
Yes, that's a problem too. Perhaps this simply needs to happen. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly be considered enforceable. I thought most NDA's required willing acceptance by both parties before it could be considered valid, a message at the bottom of the email that I have not agreed to should not be considered a valid contract. That is kind of like putting the software license agreement inside the box and the only way to get to the agreement is to open the shrink wrap, but opening the shrink wrap is your acceptance of the agreement. If you put the "warning" at the top of the email before what you are trying to protect I *might* be more likely to believe it could be enforced. Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Hartwick, VE3SLQ hartwick@hartwick.com Hartwick Communications Consulting (519) 396-7719 Kincardine, ON, CA http://www.hartwick.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:martin@theicelandguy.com] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 18:28 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu; Brian Johnson; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: he.net down/slow?
Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also innocous.
Don't them it if you don't want to or perhaps a filter on keywords?
Best,
-M<
On 1/7/10, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:51:41 CST, Brian Johnson said:
On 7 Jan 2010, at 18:18, William Pitcock wrote:
...why would you have that on a mailing list post? because the mail server that adds it is too dumb to differentiate between list and direct mail?
Bingo! ;)
That sort of gratuitous "add it to everything because our software is too stupid to sort it out" is *this* close to what the legal eagles call "overwarning". Just sayin'.
(Basically, your site and everybody else's site sticks it on everything, all the recipients just ignore it the same way we almost always ignore Received: headers because they're on every message and very rarely have any useful content - with the end result that if you stick it on a message that *matters*, it will still get ignored....)
Oh, and is your company ready to indemnify my employer for the costs of "destroy all copies of the original message" sufficiently thoroughly to prevent recovery by a competent forensics expert? This may include, but not be limited to, the main mail store for 70,000 people, backup tapes, and other mail systems where the data may have been logically deleted but as yet not overwritten. Just sayin'. ;)
-- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
Michael J. Hartwick wrote:
I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly be considered enforceable.
It might be useful to look at what some people in the legal business say about these disclaimers: http://arborlaw.biz/blog/2007/07/19/legal-issues-in-email-disclaimers/
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:01 PM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael J. Hartwick wrote:
I have never understood how posting the "warning" at the bottom of the email after you have already given up the "protected" information could possibly be considered enforceable.
It might be useful to look at what some people in the legal business say about these disclaimers:
http://arborlaw.biz/blog/2007/07/19/legal-issues-in-email-disclaimers/
Here's what these lawyers have to say: http://www.ndasforfree.com/TSProgram03BasicProtection.html "Don’t go overboard and mark everything in sight confidential. If virtually everything, including public information, is marked “confidential,” a court may conclude that nothing was really confidential. It is better not to mark anything than to mark everything." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
Both are up here from both locations I'm bothered to try (business Comcast, Net Access Corp MMU). JS
Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the SF Bay area at about 10:09 PST. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71336726.php I believe he.net's primary data center is located in the east bay, relatively near to the epicenter of this quake. This was a small quake, but perhaps a plug got jostled loose during the shaking. Or perhaps the quake is entirely unrelated to your issue. jc
JC Dill wrote:
Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the SF Bay area at about 10:09 PST. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71336726.php
I believe he.net's primary data center is located in the east bay, relatively near to the epicenter of this quake. This was a small quake, but perhaps a plug got jostled loose during the shaking. Or perhaps the quake is entirely unrelated to your issue.
Not down for me (Reno). I also have an IPv6 tunnel to fremont2 that never went down. ~Seth
I think the he.net problems occurred before the quake... -Mike On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:56 AM, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian Johnson wrote:
Has anyone noticed that accessing http://www.he.net or http://ipv6.he.net is either slow or inaccessible?
We had a 4.1 earthquake here in the SF Bay area at about 10:09 PST. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71336726.php
I believe he.net's primary data center is located in the east bay, relatively near to the epicenter of this quake. This was a small quake, but perhaps a plug got jostled loose during the shaking. Or perhaps the quake is entirely unrelated to your issue.
jc
I'm in downtown SF and felt nothing. -j On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Mike Lyon wrote:
I think the he.net problems occurred before the quake... -Mike They did. I was looking at what it looked like from here when the building started swaying.
Matthew Kaufman
--- John Adams (@netik) Retina Communications jna@retina.net http://www.retina.net/tech this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] confidential
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, John Adams <jna@retina.net> wrote:
I'm in downtown SF and felt nothing.
I live & work virtually on top of the epicenter of the quake this morning - -- it was pretty mild, but still caused some dish rattling, building swaying, etc., but connectivity around the Bay Area seems to have not been affected by it as far as I can tell. $.02, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFLRkA+q1pz9mNUZTMRAshCAJ9bjARpt9Hma5OFbmVDKpXlzvgDlgCgogJX GH+iE81XQ3AvdZqG0bJX6ys= =FJXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
participants (22)
-
Brad Fleming -
Brian Johnson -
Dave Martin -
Fearghas McKay -
goemon＠anime.net -
James Hess -
JC Dill -
Jed Smith -
Joe Greco -
joel jaeggli -
John Adams -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
Martin Hannigan -
Matthew Kaufman -
Michael J. Hartwick -
Mike Lyon -
Paul Ferguson -
Seth Mattinen -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin -
William Pitcock