On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: > >> I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is > >> within the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no > >> authority to prohibit autoresponses that result in a direct email to > >> someone on the list. Without this language, you will have a lot of > >> people continuing to whine about getting an autoresponse when they CC > >> everyone in the thread and one of them is on vacation. > >> > > Since this is the lists' AUP, whatever consenting adults do to their > > private email that has no bearing to the list is clearly OK. > > > I already know of one case that someone that CCed nanog@ and the > original poster complained when they got an autoresponder. The proposed > language is vague enough that it does not make it clear if it applies > only to messages send through the list, or a message to any individual > that includes the list. If you all want to live in a vague world, then > that's fine by me, but don't complain when you get complaints that arise > out of the vagueness. Well, that's why MLC is paid big bucks to separate loony complaints from real ones ;)
-alex
