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:
> >> 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. ----------------------------------------------------- ------ philfa...@gmail.com wrote: ------------ From: Phil Fagan <philfa...@gmail.com> Well put. ---------------------------------------- One, you're both missing the point. Do you think a sales droid that'll scrape a technical mailing list like NANOG for cold calls will respect whatever crap is put into a .sig? Don't answer. It's rhetorical... Two, "Unfortunately these companies usually also have policies prohibiting your accessing personal e-mail accounts from company owned resources". So don't. Set up an SSH tunnel over port 80 to your home server and access your non-paragraph-sized-signature email account from home. There's a million ways to do things and still follow corporate rules... scot