Send Outages-discussion mailing list submissions to
outages-discussion@outages.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
outages-discussion-requ...@outages.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
outages-discussion-ow...@outages.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Outages-discussion digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [outages] Fixing "Google Down?" (Jay R. Ashworth)
2. Outages vs Outages-Discussion (Grant Taylor)
3. Re: Outages vs Outages-Discussion (Jim Popovitch)
4. Re: Outages vs Outages-Discussion (Frank Bulk)
5. Re: Outages vs Outages-Discussion (Charles Sprickman)
6. Re: Outages vs Outages-Discussion (Grant Taylor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com>
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] [outages] Fixing "Google Down?"
Message-ID:
<162506648.1626392.1576018697007.javamail.zim...@baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Adams" <c...@cmadams.net>
> To: "Ryan Chewning" <r...@chewning.us>
> Cc: outages-discussion@outages.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:40:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] [outages] Fixing "Google Down?"
> Once upon a time, Ryan Chewning <r...@chewning.us> said:
>> To add onto what Richard is saying. when you include your region it's also
>> helpful to provide any information about your upstream carriers or if
>> you're multi-homed which carrier you're seeing the outage over.
>
> Also include what IP(s) you're trying to reach (I've been guilty of
> forgetting this). Like - I had issues getting to smtp.google.com
> earlier, but it was just one IP. I got a different IP from a different
> recursive server and it worked.
Assuming you have any way to tell; this is *precisely* the use case I expect
D'oh! to demolish as a useful diagnostic.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:06:43 -0700
From: Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net>
To: Outages-Discussion <outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
Message-ID:
<84aaea2c-4a2b-5f08-63c9-b02f3234e...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Would it be worth while to re-configure the Outages mailing list to
direct all replies to the Outages-Discussion mailing list?
That would mean that people would have to EXPLICITLY address their
message to Outages.
Just my 2? on where messages belong. (Read: Configure the technology
work for us.)
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20191211/e8487437/attachment-0001.p7s>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 23:38:06 +0000
From: Jim Popovitch <jim...@domainmail.org>
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
Message-ID: <85436c65-fd85-451a-b237-448c3611e...@domainmail.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I've been suggesting and recommending that for years, to no avail.
It's a very simple single change via the admin GUI which (apparently, why
else?) no one has the admin password or confidence to do.
Hint: reply_to_address (general): Explicit Reply-To: header.
-Jim P.
On December 11, 2019 10:06:43 PM UTC, Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:
>Would it be worth while to re-configure the Outages mailing list to
>direct all replies to the Outages-Discussion mailing list?
>
>That would mean that people would have to EXPLICITLY address their
>message to Outages.
>
>Just my 2? on where messages belong. (Read: Configure the technology
>work for us.)
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:42:22 -0600
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnk...@iname.com>
To: "'Jim Popovitch'" <jim...@domainmail.org>,
<outages-discussion@outages.org>
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
Message-ID: <000701d5b07c$a3335020$e999f060$@iname.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The counter-argument to this was made that not everyone who is on outages in on
outages-discussion, and so those posts would fail.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Outages-discussion <outages-discussion-boun...@outages.org> On Behalf Of
Jim Popovitch
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 5:38 PM
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
I've been suggesting and recommending that for years, to no avail.
It's a very simple single change via the admin GUI which (apparently, why
else?) no one has the admin password or confidence to do.
Hint: reply_to_address (general): Explicit Reply-To: header.
-Jim P.
On December 11, 2019 10:06:43 PM UTC, Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net>
wrote:
>Would it be worth while to re-configure the Outages mailing list to
>direct all replies to the Outages-Discussion mailing list?
>
>That would mean that people would have to EXPLICITLY address their
>message to Outages.
>
>Just my 2? on where messages belong. (Read: Configure the technology
>work for us.)
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion@outages.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:51:56 -0500
From: Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>
To: Frank Bulk <frnk...@iname.com>
Cc: Jim Popovitch <jim...@domainmail.org>,
outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
Message-ID: <71713729-af08-4790-836b-ed3724773...@bway.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
My thought on that is ?oh well?.
I know mailing lists are old-fashioned and everyone else is in Slack or
something, but if you can subscribe to one list, you can subscribe to two, and
if -discussion is annoying, it can be filtered off in any mainstream mail
client.
C
> On Dec 11, 2019, at 6:42 PM, Frank Bulk <frnk...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> The counter-argument to this was made that not everyone who is on outages in
> on outages-discussion, and so those posts would fail.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Outages-discussion <outages-discussion-boun...@outages.org> On Behalf
> Of Jim Popovitch
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 5:38 PM
> To: outages-discussion@outages.org
> Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
>
> I've been suggesting and recommending that for years, to no avail.
>
> It's a very simple single change via the admin GUI which (apparently, why
> else?) no one has the admin password or confidence to do.
>
> Hint: reply_to_address (general): Explicit Reply-To: header.
>
> -Jim P.
>
> On December 11, 2019 10:06:43 PM UTC, Grant Taylor
> <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> Would it be worth while to re-configure the Outages mailing list to
>> direct all replies to the Outages-Discussion mailing list?
>>
>> That would mean that people would have to EXPLICITLY address their
>> message to Outages.
>>
>> Just my 2? on where messages belong. (Read: Configure the technology
>> work for us.)
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion@outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:08:53 -0700
From: Grant Taylor <gtay...@tnetconsulting.net>
To: outages-discussion@outages.org
Subject: Re: [Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion
Message-ID:
<49893ecd-f214-fbb5-e6d2-55cd72375...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 12/11/19 4:42 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The counter-argument to this was made that not everyone who is on outages
> in on outages-discussion, and so those posts would fail.
I think "failure" is a strong word. Especially if posts from people not
subscribed to outages-discussion were moderated and the moderators could
allow the messages to go through.
There's also the ability to modify the footers that gets appended to
outages stating that replies go to the outages-discussion list.
We have technical solutions. The question is "do we want to use the
technical solutions at our disposal or not".
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20191211/cfc12136/attachment.p7s>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Outages-discussion mailing list
Outages-discussion@outages.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
------------------------------
End of Outages-discussion Digest, Vol 121, Issue 3
**************************************************
