all of you may be interested that in 1997 Marcus J. Ranum already
split off a "firewall-wizards" from this list
firewall-wizards is moderated and may be what you want
SEE http://www.nfr.net/firewall-wizards/mail-archive/1997/Sep/0000.html
X-BTW: if you don't know who MJR is see
http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/personal/resume.htm
=====QUOTE of firewall-wizards policy====
The purpose of the list is to provide you with a moderated firewall and
security related list that is more like a journal than a public soapbox.
Firewall-Wizards will be not cluttered with spam, flames or other non-list
related traffic. The addresses of the list members will not be made
available for any purpose other than maintaining the list. This is because
we feel your participation on this list is YOUR decision and should not be
an invitation to unnecessary junk mail. Furthermore, this list is
emphatically not a sounding board for Network Flight Recorder - if you
want that, subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I invite technically useful
postings from anyone, regardless of affiliation or whether favorable to
NFR or myself.
To keep list volume low and signal to noise ratio high, I will moderate
the list, approving and publishing postings on an approximately daily
basis. The "List Policy" below states how the list moderator will handle
commercial content, regardless of its origin.
List Policy:
Commercial postings are discouraged unless they are of high technical
content. I.e.: it is OK to post a description of a product or how a
product could help solve a problem. It is NOT OK to follow up to postings
saying "buy our thing! it does that!"
It is acceptable to include URLs in postings that point to marketing
materials on another website, as long as they are not the primary content
of the posting.
Spam will be discarded without acknowledgement.
Flame wars are discouraged. If they happen, I will contact both parties
out of band and ask them to desist. Postings to the effect of "stop this
flamewar" will be discarded without acknowledgement but will be taken into
consideration by the moderator.
Postings will not be edited for content; they will either be accepted
entirely or rejected entirely.
============
--
Rafi Sadowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network/System/Security VoiceMail: +972-3-646-0592 FAX: +972-3-646-5410
Mangler ( :-) | member ILAN-CERT([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Open University of Israel | (PGP key -> ) http://telem.openu.ac.il/~rafi
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Pearson, Arran wrote:
> > From: Bayard G. Bell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, 2 August 1999 5:16
> > To: Rabid Wombat
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Time to break up: call for a plebiscite
> >
> >
> > [I hope that anyone who cares to object to my posts will take the time
> > to READ them and address their substance rather than claiming that I
> > argue one thing and then making a poorly-formed argument against it or
> > attempting to use my own argument against me.]
>
> Uh oh, I think I hear the pot calling the kettle black....
>
> If you had bothered to listen (read) the discussion on moderation after your
> initial request then read and addressed the substance of the criticism to
> this thread. The point is that splitting the list is not going to help, in
> fact based on my previous experiences it makes it worse.
>
> Lets just say that we split the list as you propose, how many of us will
> subscribe to both? Many I would venture, then because people (especially
> new users) never read list charters many questions / answers will be simply
> crossposted to both lists thus doubling the e-mail volume of those who
> attempt to follow both. Those users with enough of a clue to check out the
> list charters before posting are not those who are causing the problems with
> asinine posts on the current list.
>
> On the list we have a wide range of experiences from IT security consultants
> (like myself) to clueless users to experienced administrators. Whilst the
> discussion on portscanning etc did (is?) go on for a long time much of it
> _was_ interesting and informative and is the sort of issue that the firewall
> community should be concerned about.
>
> >From what I see it seems as if you would like the list to be a big Q&A forum
> where the firewall gods can be harnessed to answer the questions of the
> masses. Well sorry but the list is not all like that. In order to keep the
> professional firewall people interested there has to be interesting issues
> discussed after all, how many times can "How do I configure Firewall-1" be
> answered.
>
> If people want specific questions answered then search the archives or post
> a question, splitting lists is not going to make someone respond to a
> question.
>
> If the list is split into two forums firewalls and firewall-policy with the
> jackasses separated into the firewall-policy (who by your own definition
> would include yourself). Explain how this reduces traffic without some
> moderation there to ensure that the list stays on charter. Without
> moderation a list will drift into finding its own level depending on who
> participates.
>
> If you want the list to stay on topic then the only way to do this is by
> appointing a full time moderator. Speak to Russ over on NTbugtraq and find
> out how much fun that is. Most people here I suspect only read the stuff
> they're interested in (and have barely enough time to do that) unless there
> is someone willing to perform the task of moderating the list then we cope
> and if the list volume gets too large then professionals will find / create
> a new forum.
>
> If you want to discuss technology then create a list which does this and
> then you can have the responsibility of ensuring that it sticks to its
> charter. Or you could subscribe to firewall-wizards which seems to be more
> technically oriented.
>
> In fact searching my personal archives indicates that the only things you
> have posted in the last month or so are complaints about the list structure
> which has generated a lot of "hear hear" of "I agree" posts (most of which
> have included your entire post btw).
>
> I do think this list has grown significantly in volume but I think the call
> that the quality is sliding is a big one. By what criteria, Oh I see, there
> isn't as much stuff on here that you want to read. That's a subjective
> basis for judgement. What I get out of this list now is different to what I
> was getting out of it 12 months ago which is as it should be. Perhaps you
> could read the archives or go to digest mode if the volume is to much to
> cope with.
>
> Just some food for thought.
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
