On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, b...@theworld.com wrote:
Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's
why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope
market forces will suffice.
Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already
crimin
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
>> power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like
>> a
>> NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only th
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a
NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous
other outreach programs that NANOG h
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 09:35:59PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Graham Johnston wrote:
> > Would you be able to provide any further insight into your Don’t #5 –
> > “Don’t agree to change management. Managers are rarely engineers and
> > should not be making technical decisions. (nor should sales)
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern
> > (gst...@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
> > ...
> > Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will
> > show your reaction
Graham Johnston wrote:
> Would you be able to provide any further insight into your Don’t #5 –
> “Don’t agree to change management. Managers are rarely engineers and
> should not be making technical decisions. (nor should sales)“.
What do you think the purpose of change control / management is?
N
Hi Graham,
The talk was giving in context of motivating people to start with
network automation and help them go from 'no automation' to a step
further 'some automation'.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 07:50:05PM +, Graham Johnston wrote:
> Would you be able to provide any further insight into your
Job,
Would you be able to provide any further insight into your Don’t #5 – “Don’t
agree to change management. Managers are rarely engineers and should not be
making technical decisions. (nor should sales)“.
Thanks,
Graham
From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@ntt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 4:0
On June 13, 2017 at 22:16 niels=na...@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote:
> * m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Tue 13 Jun 2017, 21:26 CEST]:
> >And your proposed solution is?
>
> Simple. Stop buying from spammers.
Although a perfectly reasonable suggestion the problem is that the
cost of spammi
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:02:47PM -, John Levine wrote:
> In article <63cd2031-701d-4567-b88a-2986e8b3f...@beckman.org> you write:
> >But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam.
>
> This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled
> "Address harvesti
In article <63cd2031-701d-4567-b88a-2986e8b3f...@beckman.org> you write:
>But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam.
This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled
"Address harvesting and dictionary attacks".
>And the requirement to not send you UCE t
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 01:21:21PM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Rodney,
>
> You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so
> obvious, and I wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's
> specific prohibition:
>
> (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a web
I guess that explains why so many newcomers are confused about what spam is.
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin wrote:
>
> It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from
> the original Scams/Spams..
> Ge
>
>>> Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe a écrit :
>
Ge,
On the contrary, the discussion has been limited, focused, and amazingly civil
for NANOG :)
I find it valuable.
-mel
On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin mailto:gdu...@taho.fr>>
wrote:
It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the
original Scams/Spams.
Rodney,
You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so obvious, and I
wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's specific prohibition:
(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary
service, or other online public forum operated by anot
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the
> requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how
> do you prove that someone did that?
>
Because he said so?
The spammer had the
16 matches
Mail list logo
