-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 IMHO, this is exactly what service providers love to hear in order for them not to be forth coming.
regards, /virendra Matthew Petach wrote: > On 12/28/08, Blake Pfankuch <bpfank...@cpgreeley.com> wrote: >> Any word on the actual cause of the issue? > > Given the lurking presence of wannabe press vultures here, I > doubt you'll see anything forthcoming from the technical folks > about what actually happened. This is not to say that people > haven't been informed of the issue, it's simply that NANOG is > no longer a friendly hapy techie-only place where such information > can be shared without it being seized on and quoted without > permission by the press. > > Bitter? Just a bit, yes. After having what I mentioned here get > quoted by the press without permission, it's very clear that there > will be no more technical commentary/feedback/information flow > through this channel from me or any of the other people at the > company for which I work, more's the pity. If you can find a > forum where engineers can share information freely without > having to worry about being quoted by the press, you might > try enquiring there. ^_^; > > Matt > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJV+UUpbZvCIJx1bcRAoxfAKCFn9inJ1Pq2Z0W9uuu1YeMGjf0LACeJVca GkejywYfBp2yUjTFJwrOLFU= =d1BQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
