On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Christian Koch wrote: > With actual operational content decreasing, and people using the list > as a paging system > for email admins and NOC contacts more frequently, why has the AUP not > been updated to reflect what seems to be a > "frowned upon" use of the list?
I largely concur with this --- and will point out that the "mailop" list was, I believe, in part started in order to divert mail-specific traffic from NANOG. I think that it would probably serve both the nanog list and the mailop list well to make a concerted effort to point folks in that direction. But there's a secondary problem here: contact information, especially role account email addresses, often either (a) don't work at all (b) have inappropriate filtering -- e.g., spam filters on an "abuse" address (c) disappear into ticketing systems (d) land in the mailboxes of people who aren't equipped, authorized or knowledgeable enough to grasp the nature, extent or urgency of the problem. My suggestion in this regard is that we all make an effort to ensure that we've at least dealt with (a) and (b) so that we can then have a fighting chance about doing something wrt (c) and (d). I suppose what I'm saying here is that the presence of this traffic on the nanog list isn't the problem per se -- it's a symptom of the problem. ---Rsk _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
