nanog mailing list archives
Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell () isipp com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:58:30 -0600
Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this: Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-( Anne
On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell () isipp com> wrote: Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...). However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there: Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know what I'm talking about. I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)). I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off). Anne [This .sig space open to suggestions.]
Current thread:
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?, (continued)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Matthew Kaufman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mike Hammett (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mel Beckman (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? William Herrin (Apr 26)
- My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Ross Tajvar (Apr 26)
- Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?) Tom Beecher (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Mark Seiden (Apr 25)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? John Levine (Apr 26)
- Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS? Owen DeLong (Apr 26)