«

I was just wondering if anybody has heard about a release date for a new
version of the Pix and PDM software?



BG

Hi BG,

The new Cisco PIX 7.0 Software is coming soon.

The new OS supports Hub and spoke VPN without having to full mesh them
when a PIX is used to terminate VPN tunnels at the head end.

PIX 501, 506, 506E support will come with a follow-on release.

Sincerely,

Brad Reese
BradReese.Com Cisco Repair Worldwide
United Kingdom: 44-20-70784294
U.S. Toll Free: 877-549-2680
International: 828-277-7272
Fax: 775-254-3558
Website: http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-big-iron-repair.htm

Brad - Any information related to the PIX 7.0 Beta is NON-disclosure.
Please do not post it to public newsgroups.

In article < .com>,
The Green Manalishi <> wrote:
:Brad - Any information related to the PIX 7.0 Beta is NON-disclosure.
lease do not post it to public newsgroups.

There have been previous "leaks". As best I can recall, Brad isn't
posting anything that hasn't already been reported.
--
Suppose there was a test you could take that would report whether
you had Free Will or were Pre-Destined. Would you take the test?

That's quite irrevent, you should know that. Green is right. If you have
access to that info, keep it to yourself. If you don't, you don't know if
it's accurate in the first place.


"Walter Roberson" <> wrote in message
news:ct3ukm$9ju$...
> In article < .com>,
> The Green Manalishi <> wrote:
> :Brad - Any information related to the PIX 7.0 Beta is NON-disclosure.
> lease do not post it to public newsgroups.
>
> There have been previous "leaks". As best I can recall, Brad isn't
> posting anything that hasn't already been reported.
> --
> Suppose there was a test you could take that would report whether
> you had Free Will or were Pre-Destined. Would you take the test?

Walter Roberson wrote:
> There have been previous "leaks". As best I can recall, Brad isn't
> posting anything that hasn't already been reported.

But NDA is NDA. There have been countless times that I wanted to post
something (new products, new releases, new features) but couldn't
because of the NDA.

--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
************************************************** ******************

In article <NkmJd.74540$>,
Hansang Bae <> wrote:
:Walter Roberson wrote:
:> There have been previous "leaks". As best I can recall, Brad isn't
:> posting anything that hasn't already been reported.

:But NDA is NDA. There have been countless times that I wanted to post
:something (new products, new releases, new features) but couldn't
:because of the NDA.

I wouldn't know if Brad has signed a PIX NDA or is simply reposting
something he has read somewhere else.

NDAs are a form of trade-secret law. Legal opinion in the US is
divided, with one camp saying that once the secret is out of the
bag, no-one, whether party to the NDA or not, has an obligation
to continue to protect the secret. The other camp [which is
backed by at least one notable court case] says that if one
encounters trade-secret information, then one is only protected
until the time that one discovers or realizes that the information
is intended to be secret, and that once one knows that, one
becomes muzzled, just as if one had signed the NDA originally.
[To which the other camp says "Bosh! You can't be bound by a
contract you never signed nor indicated implicit consent to!"]

Fortunately, I haven't signed any NDAs at all with Cisco, and
the disagreements about trade secrets that exist in US law have
no relevance to me here.
--
I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim.
-- Christopher Priest

In article <nLednRMxOdBuTGjcRVn->,
John Forsythe <> wrote:
|"Walter Roberson" <> wrote in message
|news:ct3ukm$9ju$...
|> There have been previous "leaks". As best I can recall, Brad isn't
|> posting anything that hasn't already been reported.

|That's quite irrevent, you should know that.

In some jurisdictions, publication of a trade secret completely
voids all NDA's of the material actually made public [but not
of any details not made public.] Even in the USA, there is a large
faction of lawyers that follow that precept. I don't happen to be
in the USA or subject to US law, so I *don't* know previous
publication to be "quite irrevent [sic]".


|Green is right. If you have
|access to that info, keep it to yourself. If you don't, you don't know if
|it's accurate in the first place.

Did I claim Brad's information to be accurate? Re-read what I wrote:
I made no comment on his -accuracy-, only on whether the material
had previously been published.

Are -you- saying that Brad's posting was accurate? If so, then
thanks for confirming Brad's rumourmongering, and thanks for
implicitly offering to confirm other potential rumours by
getting riled up if someone posts something close to the truth.

I am not under any NDA's, by the way, so I am free to repeat
hearsay.
--
Entropy is the logarithm of probability -- Boltzmann

Fro Christ's sake Walter, I simply stated a fact that information
regarding PIX 7.0 beta is under an NDA. Maybe he didn't know, maybe he
is just repeating something he read somewhere. Who cares! I just
asked him to please not post information regarding the beta. Now he
knows, and so does everyone else who read the post.
Also, you're no legal expert, especially on US law. So please bag it.

In article < .com>,
The Green Manalishi <> wrote:
:Fro Christ's sake Walter, I simply stated a fact that information
:regarding PIX 7.0 beta is under an NDA.

-Verified- information, perhaps, but over the last year there have
been some messages by various people purporting to give information
about features of PIX 7.0. Any such information, once made
public, is fair game for repetition and comment, unless
local law places restrictions on such dissemination.

:Maybe he didn't know, maybe he
:is just repeating something he read somewhere.

As far as I am concerned, his posting was no more than an
educated guess or something overheard in a coffee shop. I know enough
to take all such postings with large grains of salt.


:Also, you're no legal expert, especially on US law. So please bag it.

No thank you. The principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
has a legal Lutheren-like collalary, namely that each person may read
the law and interpret it for themselves. I happen to have done some
research into US Trade Secret law just a few weeks ago; the legal
principles I presented were a lay wording summary of FAQ-format
information posted by a law firm that claims to be specialists in Trade
Secret and other Intellectual Property law -- including the point that
US legal specialists have fundamental disagreements over the legal duty
to safeguard information which has been publically revealed.


You know, Mike, I never took you to be an advocate for censorship;
I always thought of you as more an EFF type of guy, a believer
that the antidote for bad information was not censorship but rather
more [correct] information. Was my impression wrong all this time,
or were you just frustrated in this instance because of my
contrariness?
--
Aleph sub {Aleph sub null} little, Aleph sub {Aleph sub one} little,
Aleph sub {Aleph sub two} little infinities...