the source I have seen so far is:
http://news.com.com/GoDaddy.com+suffers
+outage/2110-7349_3-5977187.html?tag=nefd.hed
So I was looking for more details....
the source I have seen so far is:
http://news.com.com/GoDaddy.com+suffers
+outage/2110-7349_3-5977187.html?tag=nefd.hed
stuck through tinyurl for those that care:
http://tinyurl.com/83hxp
So I was looking for more details....
apparently it affected web and mail, so I'd assume someone targetted their
DNS hosts 
bummer for them... if they were a customer we could have
helped. They seem to be ATT customers, Tim could probably have helped them
as well... perhaps calling their ISP's for assitance would have made the
affect less than 65 mins? and thus less press-worthy
It could be a DoS that used a software vulnerability though.
This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA !
[Dire threats regarding confidentiality, etc. snipped.]
This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA !
One would think that those posting here would have the clue to realize
that they are sending mail to a widely read and archived mailing list,
making any such confidentiality warning rather ludicrous.
One would also hope that most posters here would also have the horsepower
within their organization to point out the ridiculousness to whoever
implemented such cruft or at least sufficient privileges on the company
MTA to strip it from their own postings.
This silliness started with fax cover pages before it morphed to
email, but it seems to have mostly disappeared from the fax world.
Has the validity of such language ever been upheld in court?
NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
have received this communication in error, you are obligated to kill
yourself and anyone else who may have read it, not necessarily in that
order. So there. My disclaimer is scarier than yours. Nyaah. You
started this silly nonsense. Knock it off and I will too, ok? It is a
tragic waste of perfectly good CPU cycles, storage, and bandwidth.
Nobody reads it anyway. You're not actually reading this, are you?
I didn't think so.
Has the validity of such language ever been upheld in court?
IANAL - but apparently the use of it on *some* faxes has stood up in court,
it hasn't been tested on e-mail yet, but a number of people who have written
on it think that the indiscriminate use of disclaimers will backfire badly
if the opposing legal staff can show the company can't tell the difference
between an e-mail discussing strategy for an upcoming trial and a request
for help with BGP. URLs I found the last time I researched this:
http://www.wendytech.com/articlesemailandprivilege.htm
http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/commercial_litigation/LitigationEthics.Brief.33.2.Winter2004.pdf
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/cyber/cyberlaw/17law.html
Nobody reads it anyway. You're not actually reading this, are you?
I didn't think so.
I love the ones that put "please discard without reading" at the *bottom* of
the e-mail. Bonus points for having a single unwrapped 3,487 character long
line so standard-compliant MUAs that don't flow text unless it *says* text/flowed,
so you have to use the horizontal scrollbar to find the "please discard without
reading" 
ObNANOG: The ones that claim you are *required* to destroy *all* copies,
including the unlinked-but-not-yet-overwritten data blocks on that RAID
you use for a mail store, and the backup tapes. I mean, after all, if they
screwed up and they want it *destroyed*, they don't want it *destroyed* in the
half-assed, just-get-the-disk-copy way that eventually helped convict
Colonel Oliver North partly on the basis of the backup tapes:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/reagan/chron.txt
Figuring out how to do this right, and then invoice the responsible company for the
cost, thus creating a profit center for your company, is left as an excersize
for the reader.
IMO, such disclaimers are incompatible with the nanog ml, anyone posting from such disclaimer-encumbered accounts should be forcefully
unsubscribed. If you can't post from a disclaimer-free account, you shouldn't be posting to the list, period.
-Dan
That is the policy on a few linux / linux related mailing lists I am
on (the sort that are just as eager to chase down people who top post
and full quote, for example)
Easily ignorable / tune-out-able though, and the discussions about
this sort of stuff consume far more bits than the actual disclaimer.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:20:28 -0800, Dan Hollis proclaimed...
IMO, such disclaimers are incompatible with the nanog ml, anyone posting
from such disclaimer-encumbered accounts should be forcefully
unsubscribed. If you can't post from a disclaimer-free account, you
shouldn't be posting to the list, period.
You've wasted more of our time by posting this message than by those people
who have disclaimers.