From: Jonathan V Hays (jhays@jtan.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:11:58 GMT-3
Thanks.
Your guidelines for handling NDAs on this list have some merit. And you
are correct that drawing public attention to an NDA may not be the best
idea.
However, in this case it is worth pointing out that an NDA violation did
not occur. Sameer himself did not violate the NDA but was apparently
asking others to do so. Perhaps he simply was not aware of the existence
of the NDA. There is so much legal boilerplate floating around that few
of us bother to read it.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Logan, Harold
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:43 PM
To: akbar khan; i_sameer@hotmail.com; sanjay_wc@hotmail.com;
deepesh@cisco.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Reminder of NDA -- Re: CCIE # 12046
Disclaimer: I am not a mod. It has always been my opinion though that
the best response to suspected NDA violations on the list is to either:
1. Ignore it.
2. Report it to a moderator
3. Take it up with the suspected violator off-list.
The absolute worst thing to do is to mention it on-list, because then
you're drawing attention to the alleged violation.
Having said that, the literary scholar that's capable of reading through
ALL THAT STUFF below and finding a useful piece of NDA-violating
material deserves whatever perceived edge they get on the next lab
because of it. Anyone with the patience to read through all that
deserves it.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
sameer inam
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:33 AM
To: sanjay_wc@hotmail.com; deepesh@cisco.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CCIE # 12046
congrate for the clear the CCIE LAB ...i am also started the preparation
of CCIE lab can u tell me wat type question there ...and wat type
senorio
ok
i really thank full to you
take care
sameer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:53 GMT-3