On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be
> nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or
> the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-
four
> me if I've missed it.
MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home
Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is
$3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about
voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it
appears you're not really welcome.
Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could
do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in
the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list.
I would support the creation of a mail-operators list (& agenda time
for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean
that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be
offtopic on nanog-l.
