[note that this post also relates to the thread Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads]
While both discussions started out as operational, most of the mail traffic is things that are not very much related to technology or operations. To clarify, things like these are on-topic: * Whether p2p protocols are "well-behaved", and how can we help making them behave. * Filtering "non-behaving" applications, whether these are worms or p2p applications. * Helping p2p authors write protocols that are topology- and congestion-aware These are on-topic, but all arguments for and against have already been made. Unless you have something new and insightful to say, please avoid continuing conversations about these subjects: * ISPs should[n't] have enough capacity to accomodate any application, no matter how well or badly behaved * ISPs should[n't] charge per byte * ISPs should[n't] have bandwidth caps * Legality of blocking and filtering These are clearly off-topic: * End-user comments about their particular MSO/ISP, pricing, etc. * Morality of blocking and filtering As a guideline, if you can expect a presentation at nanog conference about something, it belongs on the list. If you can't, it doesn't. It is a clear distinction. In addition, keep in mind that this is the "network operators" mailing list, *not* the end-user mailing list. Marty Hannigan (MLC member) already made a post on the "Comcast blocking p2p uploads" asking to stick to the operational content (vs, politics and morality of blocking p2p application), but people still continue to make non-technical comments. Accordingly, to increase signal/noise (as applied to network operations) MLC (that's us, the team who moderate this mailing list) won't hesitate to warn posters who ignore the limits set by AUP and guidance set up by MLC. If you want to discuss this moderation request, please do so on nanog-futures. -alex [mlc chair]
