On 12/21/05, Albert Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I looked
around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to
organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel
to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?
Andrew Kirch wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
>>
Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG:
/msg chanserv info #nanog
>chanserv< info #nanog
-ChanServ- Channel: #nanog
-ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago
-ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago
-ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago
-ChanServ- Topic: North American Network Operators Group
-ChanServ- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps
-ChanServ- Mode Lock: -s
--chip
--
Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc....
