Well put. On May 17, 2013 1:54 PM, "John Starta" <j...@starta.org> wrote:
> On May 17, 2013, at 8:24 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:22 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said: > > > >> You haven't been here long have you... > >> > >> He DOES NOT need a 260 word signature (see below!) to make sure he does > >> not get UCE from posting to NANOG. > > > > Actually, I think Thomas Cannon was making the opposite point - that if > > he's going to spam us all with a 260 word disclaimer, it could have been > > expanded to 263 words and add 'No cold calls'. Or just have that and lose > > the other 260 words that make absolutely no sense on a NANOG posting. > > Do you believe that Brent wrote the disclaimer attached to his message? > Despite y/our opinions of such disclaimers, legal counsel in some companies > still mandate their automatic attachment on all outbound messages. The only > means of avoiding them is to subscribe to mailing lists from a personal > e-mail account. Unfortunately these companies usually also have policies > prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail accounts from company owned > resources which can minimize the usefulness of some lists. In other words, > just because we might work for "enlightened" companies doesn't mean all our > colleagues can or do. >