On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Simon Lyall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > > > > There's no new charter, just SOP's. But yes, it is against the AUP. > > > > Let me see if the authors of these valuable reports can fix that with > > > > a BCC. > > > > > > BCC'ing the other lists is still cross-posting. > > > > The intent IIRC to discourage threads across multiple lists of > > thousands and thousands of people. BCC would seem to be consistent > > with that intent. > > In that case people filtering by using the "To: " header so the emails > would not be correctly filtered.
Subject: ? Is there some reason why it will be so horrible to change your filter? > Also what exactly is the need to send 3 emails to several lists every week > when no discussion on them is expected (at least not on most of the > lists) ? Speaking for this list, we do occasionally see discussion and sometimes resolution based on that discussion. Is there some reason that this report should not come to the list? > Another type of email that might be sent to several lists would be CFPs > for Network Organisation meetings. Ok. > In any case the current policy doesn't reflect current practice so one or > both needs to be modified. Feel free to propose some language to do that. _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
