From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jan 2 07:36:38 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02993 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:36:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA04656 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA04642; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA04611 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02987 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 07:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id g02CcBn13698; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:38:11 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id g02CZsQ04475; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:35:55 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B35.00461B2B ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:45:44 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: Arozin@Opticalaccess.com cc: Bridge-mib@ietf.org Message-ID: <80256B35.00461954.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:32:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] Q: dot1dTpAgingTime in RFC1493 ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Alex, Ageing can be effectively disabled for specific addresses by making them permanent, using the dot1dStaticTable (RFC 1493) or dot1qStaticUnicastTable (RFC 2674). IEEE 802.1D does not allow you to disable the ageing process. If it is disabled, you are likely to see traffic mis-directed after a topology change in a network that implements STP (version 0), resulting in some trafffic being forwarded to blocked ports. RSTP does not rely on address ageing, instead it flushes the FDB after a topology change, so disabling address ageing will have no effect. Ageing only applies to addresses that have not been active for the period defined in dot1dTpAgingTime. The maximum value of 1,000,000 seconds that may be configured for this is equivalent to more than 11 days. It is not much of an overhead to occasionally re-learn addresses that are inactive for such extended periods. What benefits do you expect to see if ageing is disabled? Les... alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin)@ietf.org on 25/12/2001 10:43:38 Please respond to Sent by: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org To: cc: Subject: [Bridge-mib] Q: dot1dTpAgingTime in RFC1493 ? Hi, In RFC1493 there is no option to disable aging process at all. In our products we have to use one of two *bad* methods: 1. *Edit* the standard MIB to avoid interval "range validity" of dot1dTpAgingTime: dot1dTpAgingTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER -- (10..1000000) [the range is commented out] ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The timeout period in seconds for aging out dynamically learned forwarding information. 802.1D-1990 recommends a default of 300 seconds. The value 0 means mode 'aging out is disabled'." REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 6.7.1.1.3" ::= { dot1dTp 2 } The value '0' of the object means the mode "aging is disabled" 2. Use our *private* MIB for this purpose. Question: Is WG going to solve this problem in the standard MIB ? Or: is there another method (may in another MIB) ? Or: does WG think, that aging process has not to be disabled ? As example, we propose to add a new special object, something like this: dot1dTpAgingEnabled OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TruthValue ACCESS read-write STATUS mandatory DESCRIPTION "The value true(1) means 'aging mode is enabled'. The value false(2) means 'aging mode is disabled'" REFERENCE "IEEE 802.1D-1990: Section 6.7.1.1.3" ::= { dot1dTp 5 } Best regards, Alex _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jan 2 09:08:47 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04259 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA08436 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA08424; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:08:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA08391 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:08:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from apollo.nbase.co.il (apollo.nbase.co.il [194.90.137.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04252 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 09:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from Alexr ([194.90.136.135]) by apollo.nbase.co.il (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-44418U200L2S100) with SMTP id AAA107; Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:10:48 +0200 Reply-To: From: alexr@nbase.co.il (Alex Ruzin) To: "'Les Bell'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] Q: dot1dTpAgingTime in RFC1493 ? Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 16:10:29 +0200 Message-ID: <001901c19397$3c3c3cd0$87885ac2@Alexr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <80256B35.00461954.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:32 PM Mr. Les Bell wrote: Les > Ageing can be effectively disabled for specific addresses by Les > making them Les > permanent, using the dot1dStaticTable (RFC 1493) or Les > dot1qStaticUnicastTable (RFC Les > 2674). No, this method is not good for us, because we would like to consider automatically learned entries. > IEEE 802.1D does not allow you to disable the ageing process. > If it is > disabled, you are likely to see traffic mis-directed after a > topology change in > a network that implements STP (version 0), resulting in some > traffic being > forwarded to blocked ports. No, disabled ageing doesn't prevent STP: it disables only "regular ageing" while "fast" ageing operates anyway. > > RSTP does not rely on address ageing, instead it flushes the > FDB after a > topology change, so disabling address ageing will have no effect. Yes, in RSTP address ageing will have no effect, if the value of ForceVersion (17.16.1) for the Bridge is 0, indicating that the Bridge is operating in STP Compatibility mode - 17.19.6 & 17.28 in IEEE 802.1y > Ageing only applies to addresses that have not been active > for the period > defined in dot1dTpAgingTime. The maximum value of 1,000,000 > seconds that may be > configured for this is equivalent to more than 11 days. It > is not much of an > overhead to occasionally re-learn addresses that are inactive > for such extended > periods. > > What benefits do you expect to see if ageing is disabled? OK, let us consider the "silent" device, that had been learned with a regular learning process and now only receives data a great amount of time (weeks). The example - some "spy" system. And we don't want to relearn it after ageing, because relearning may cause an unwanted from security reasons address flooding. The second case - needs of debugging. There disabled ageing and ageing of 11 days - is not the same. [Sincerely, for us is a first purpose, but may be not only for us] What do you think about it ? Thank you for the cooperation, Alex --------------------- Open Source RSTP https://sourceforge.net/projects/rstplib/ Optical Access Ltd. http://www.opticalaccess.com _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jan 9 04:57:20 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01850 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id EAA25267 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25252; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:57:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA25221 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from columba.eur.3com.com (columba.EUR.3Com.COM [161.71.169.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01842; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 04:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from toucana.eur.3com.com (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.50]) by columba.eur.3com.com with ESMTP id g099wxn16428; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:58:59 GMT Received: from notesmta.eur.3com.com (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM [140.204.220.206]) by toucana.eur.3com.com with SMTP id g099ukQ11137; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:56:46 GMT Received: by notesmta.eur.3com.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256B3C.00378996 ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:06:37 +0000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM From: "Les Bell" To: minutes@ietf.org cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, stds-802-1@ieee.org Message-ID: <80256B3C.003786F3.00@notesmta.eur.3com.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:52:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Bridge-mib] 52nd IETF - BridgeMIB WG minutes Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org 52nd IETF Salt Lake City, UT December 2001 BridgeMIB WG minutes KC Norseth volunteered to take the minutes, Les Bell took minutes while KC was presenting. A call was made for Implementation Reports from all vendors. Email the reports to the mailing list, the chair (Les Bell), or the Area Director (Bert Wijnen). SMIv2 Bridge MIB This has missed the original September 2001 milestone. Some objects have changed from read-only (dot1dTpFdbAddress, dot1dBasePort) or read-create (dot1dStaticAddress, dot1dstaticReceivePort) to not-accessible, as they are index objects. This is likely to break current implementations and applications, therefore, they will be restored to their original access permissions. This is permitted according to RFC 2578, section 7.7. dot1dStaticAllowedToGoTo needs to be bounded. The required size is 512 octets, to support up to 4096 ports. This exceeds minimum required SNMP packet size, therefore, this needs to be noted in the DESCRIPTION of this object. See RFC 2578 section 7.1 for details on size limitations. The use of dot1dStpEnable is reportedly inconsistently implemented. Therefore this requires clarification. Some vendors use this to disable STP on a port. The consensus was to wait until after InterWorking Labs Test Summit in January 2002, to see if more feedback results from this. SMIv2 Source Routing MIB No issues were raised. It is acceptable to recycle this as a Proposed Standard in this case, although it was suggested that Informational or Historic may be appropriate document states. It was decided that it would be best for the Area Director to decide on the appropriate document status. RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB The consensus at the meeting was that U-BRIDGE-MIB and V-BRIDGE-MIB should be added to an update of RFC 2674. The U-BRIDGE-MIB objects should be incorporated into the existing Q-BRIDGE-MIB. V-BRIDGE-MIB should be a separate MIB module inthis document. No objections to this proposal have been received on the mailing list since it was proposed after the London IETF in August. Vivian Ngai volunteered to become the editor for this revision of RFC 2674. This will mean that the revised document will have to be re-cycled at Proposed status. A number of items have been highlighted as being deliberately omitted from RFC 2674, it was the consensus of the room to leave these out of the revised MIBs. This includes the GMRP and GVRP Notifications that were added after the London IETF, so these will be removed again. The required SYNTAX changes to dot1dPortPathCost mean that this object should be deprecated and a new object created to replace it. The suggestion raised on the mailing list, to include counters for Config, TCN and RSTP BPDUs received on each port, Port Role and Legacy Neighbour information was agreed by those in the room. These should be added to the next revision of the document. IEEE 802.1X MIB The IEEE 802.1 WG approved publication of this MIB as an Informational RFC. Permission has been requested from the IEEE to do this. This is just waiting for the copyright release from IEEE. KC Norseth has prepared an Internet-Draft for publication of this MIB. This will be submitted to IETF when permission is granted by IEEE. Dan Romascanu volunteered to bring up any issues that people have with the 802.1X MIB at the next IEEE 802.1 meeting in Raleigh, NC, January 14-18 - meeting details can be found at http://www.ieee802.org/3/interims/index.html You can raise these issues on the bridge-mib@ietf.org mailing list. IEEE 802.1s MIB The consensus in the room was that this is not yet stable enough for a MIB to be developed. This should not be added to the WG Charter at this time. Goals & Milestones RFC 1525 Source Routing MIB update - to be submitted to IESG by February 2002. RFC 1493 Bridge MIB update - to be submitted to IESG after the March 2002 meeting. RFC 2674 Bridge MIB Extensions update - to be submitted to IESG after the July 2002 meeting. Any Other Business InterWorking Labs are holding a Bridge MIB and Ethernet Interfaces MIB Test Summit January 28-30, 2002. They are looking for input on test scenarios and participants for this event. Feedback from this event may be useful for the Implementation Reports required for advancing these standards. Slides are available for the presentations from K.C. Norseth (Bridge MIB, 802.1X MIB) & Vivian Ngai (RSTP-MIB, U-BRIDGE-MIB, V-BRIDGE-MIB) at http://www.norseth.org/ietf/bridgemib Les Bell _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Tue Jan 15 20:40:11 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17858 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA01242 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01191; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA01160 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from foozball.iwl.com (foozball.iwl.com [199.184.128.3]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17842 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from web110.iwl.com (web110.iwl.com [199.184.129.17]) by foozball.iwl.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g0G1bpa17660 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:37:51 -0800 Received: from localhost (chrisw@localhost) by web110.iwl.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0G1bpv21018 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:37:51 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Wellens Reply-To: Chris Wellens To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Bridge-mib] Draft Test Plan for the Bridge MIB Test Summit Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org The Draft Test Plan for the Bridge & Interfaces MIB Test Summit is now available for comment at http://www.iwl.com/Info/test_plan.html Some areas of RFC 2674 are very difficult to test and suggestions for how to best do this are welcome and should be posted to the mailing list. Phase One -- *FREE* Meeting to Discuss Test Plan 1:30 - 4:30 p.m. Monday, January 28th Wyndham Hotel 1350 North First Street San Jose, California The purpose of the meeting will be to ask all the implementors to come together to discuss the test plan and offer suggestions on the areas where testing is highly problematic, due to precision timing issues, and massive network reconfiguration. Phase Two: -- Actual Test Summit March 5, 6, 7, 2002 InterWorking Labs Scotts Valley, California Participants will test their products implementing (RFCs 2665, 2233, 2863, 2674, and/or 1493) for conformance and interoperability with other implementations. Participants will also identify and clarify areas of confusion in the RFCs where implementations differ. _______________________________________________ Bridge-mib mailing list Bridge-mib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib From danawvu1540125@pacbell.net Sat Jan 19 07:18:07 2002 Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com [171.70.157.152]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18476 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 07:18:07 -0500 (EST) From: danawvu1540125@pacbell.net Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.17.42]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g0JBjWo15361; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0JBjWx16674; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:45:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from pacbell.net (main.milkycartoon.co.jp [210.230.174.26]) by proxy1.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id g0JBjCD02647; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:45:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 03:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from 110.222.42.181 ([110.222.42.181]) by ssymail.ssy.co.kr with QMQP; 18 Jan 2002 14:00:03 +0800 Received: from unknown (HELO sparc.isl.net) (125.89.243.217) by rly-xw05.mx.aol.com with esmtp; 19 Jan 2002 06:53:04 -0900 Received: from unknown (HELO rly-xw01.mx.aol.com) (48.8.93.142) by sydint1.microthin.com.au with SMTP; 18 Jan 2002 10:46:06 +1100 Received: from unknown (HELO q4.quik.com) (9.47.176.236) by smtp-server1.cfl.rr.com with asmtp; 18 Jan 2002 17:39:07 +0400 Reply-To: Message-ID: <004e12a58aec$8373e3a3$7cd27ee7@ondkfm> To: Postmaster@cisco.com Subject: Free Printer Cartridges! MiME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.503 (Entity 5.501) Importance: Normal Hi, Untitled Document

That's right! What's the catch...? There is none! We are confident that you will become a valued customer of EvoClix after you try one, FREE!

<<Click Here!>>

This is our 2002 New Year gift to you! No Strings attached. Come visit our store and discover what our existing customers have already, high quality printing products up to 80% off "Office Superstore" prices.

Shop Now at:
www.evoclicks.net
(Can't link from above? Copy and paste the URL to your browser!)
This message is in full compliance with U.S. Federal requirements for commercial email under bill S.1618 Title 111, Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2) (C), passed by the 105th U.S. Congress and cannot be considered SPAMsince it includes a removal mechanism.

to be removed please click here, thank you.

[8830eYqI8-870cumG2031YQLd7-481vMGY6929Qkcu2-180MgYQ5431Kdvp1-690@60] From vvmell@lycos.com Mon Jan 21 03:44:58 2002 Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02822 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 03:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com [171.69.24.12]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g0L8GWd14956 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:16:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy3.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-2.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g0L8GWZ29251 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:16:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.singsong.co.kr ([61.32.244.3]) by proxy3.cisco.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g0L8HPT07445 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cflasdmok (04-170.024.popsite.net [216.126.163.170]) by ns.singsong.co.kr (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA23930; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:55:25 +0900 (KST) Message-Id: <200201210755.QAA23930@ns.singsong.co.kr> From: "Marcus Arkland" Subject: New Programs for 2002 #41CC To: section99k@ns.singsong.co.kr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:48:01 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a MIME Message ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0" ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ***** This is an HTML Message ! ***** ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Professional

Dear Professional,

Upon receipt of the following information, your busine= ss information can be listed among thousands of highly successful executives = and professionals who would also like a fast and easy way to communicate with = their peers=2E

There are a variety of business publications that will= list your information for free=2E The information you provide below will help i= n finding a registry, directory or trade publication that would be best suit= ed for your personal business expertise=2E

In many cases your acceptance into one or more of thes= e publications can be considered recognition for your accomplishments throug= hout your business career=2E

For the traditional book publications it is important = to provide the company=92s SIC code (Standard Industry Classification code)=2E= Some of the registries list the companies by SIC codes to make it easier to fin= d the type of business you would be looking for=2E

If you would like to be published in an on-line regist= ry, you would want to submit several =93key words=94 that would enhance the search= capabilities for your organization=2E The more =93key words=94 your listin= g contains the easier your information can be accessed by the individuals th= at are looking for your type of business or expertise=2E

Best wishes on your continued success=2E

 
NAME:
COMPANY:<= /td> =
TITLE:
STREET ADDRES= S: =
CITY/TOWN:
BUSINESS PHON= E:
BUSINESS FAX:= =
WEBSITE/URL:<= /b> =
EMAIL:
NUMBER OF EMP= LOYEES:
YEARS IN BUSI= NESS:
SIC CODE:=
TYPE OF INDUS= TRY:
YOUR RESPONSI= BILITIES/ EXPERTISE:
PRODUCTS/SERV= ICES:
TELL US ABOUT= YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

 

 List Removal/OPT-OUT Option
Click Here

------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0-- ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BDF6C7.FABAC1B0--