Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm subscribed to both now. ;-) The advantage to the NANOG subject > header was obviously it was resilient to e-mail address changes for the > list. A nice attribute given e-mails now come in from both > nanog@nanog

RE: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
ey Cc: nanog; nanog-futures Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Joe Abley wrote: > > On 22 May 2008, at 23:16, James R. Cutler wrote: > >> The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I >> would expect that there are scads more read

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Marshall Eubanks
On May 23, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Sam Stickland wrote: Joe Abley wrote: On 22 May 2008, at 23:16, James R. Cutler wrote: The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog announce. When I was sending things

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:59:15 +0100 Sam Stickland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kinda makes you wonder what the purpose on the announce list is though. > Are there actually people subscribed to nanog-annouce that aren't > subscribed to nanog? Perhaps not but it could be useful anyway. People may

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Sam Stickland
Joe Abley wrote: On 22 May 2008, at 23:16, James R. Cutler wrote: The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog announce. When I was sending things to nanog-announce, it was the case that mail to nanog

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Joe Abley
On 22 May 2008, at 23:16, James R. Cutler wrote: The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog announce. When I was sending things to nanog-announce, it was the case that mail to nanog-announce was s

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-23 Thread Robert E. Seastrom
Once upon a time, wasn't nanog@ subscribed to nanog-announce@ ? It appears to not be now. I went looking in my archives for that message-id; the only copy of that mail I got was from you, and I am on both -futures and the main list. Thanks for sending that along, Jim.

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-22 Thread James R. Cutler
The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog announce. For some, that could cause unexpected results, especially with the 24 hour notice. Corroborative detail below. (Oops, top posting) Regards. On

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

2008-05-22 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, someone wrote: > Add me to the list of never-saw-that. In addition, I just checked the > nanog archives, and there isn't an announcement of that type in the > archives. Below is the full email, with headers, from Monday. Hopefully it will put this issue to rest...