Ditto, and I do find it informative. Jim
On Oct 15, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Kyle Creyts <kyle.cre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I may not read it for the purpose of aggregation, but it is useful data to > me for other purposes. > > As long as there is one person talking and at least one person listening, a > thread is in order, and it isn't spam. > On Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM, "Geoff Huston" <g...@apnic.net> wrote: > >> From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads >> this any more. >> >> Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this >> report? >> >> >> thanks, >> Geoff >> >> >> >>
