Re: [Nanog-futures] spam-l list

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:29, Jo Rhett  wrote:
> That's funny, given that Mailman is the source of significant amounts
> of backscatter.

Mailman is neither an MTA nor a MUA.  Something before or after
Mailman is backscattering.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] observation on long delays

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 21:54, Adrian Chadd  wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009, Lucy Lynch wrote:
>
>> You're missing my point. It may be time publiclly admit that the NANOG
>> list is a place to discuss operational issues but not a place for
>> real-time discussion of operational incidents.
>>
>> I hate saying this: tweeter had better info and, as we all know, twitter
>> is irc for girls.
>
> Or someone could take it as an oppertunity to write some mail software
> slightly more optimised for sending stupendeous amounts of legitimate
> email in a short period of time, instead of the combinations of mostly
> generic mail "solution" software that is currently in use.
>
> I did this commercially a few years ago for (legitimate!) internal marketing
> stuff on a set of mailing lists with slightly more subscribers than
> nanog-ml (add another "0" to the subscriber count.) It is quite surprising
> how fast you can handle queuing and sending mesages when you're queuing
> and sending the same message body 150,000 times with only slight changes
> to the header contents.


The solution is to separate inbound and outbound systems, and to have
multiple outbound queues.   But that requires some
time/effort/thought/cost and perhaps it's not a priority at this point
in time.  I can offer some freebie assistance if needed.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 18:45, Simon Lyall  wrote:
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:
>
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>     at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>     directly supports network routing and connectivity.

It's really just easier to say that NANOG is only for old-timers, BGP,
and long boring discussions of interest only to IETF policy makers and
IETF wanna-bes.

IMHO, Engineering belongs on IETF lists, Operational issues on NANOG,
and everything else should expire within 24 hours.   "Is it down for
just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the poster.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Rudeness because presenters suck.

[Jim Popovitch]

Would everyone prefer to hear from well-heeled slick Vendor sales
engineers instead?   Doctors are some of the most boring people on
earth, but if you listen closely you will surely learn something from
them.  Likewise engineers aren't the most presentable people on earth,
but if you listen closely you can hope to  learn something from them.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Let's Multiply!

[Jim Popovitch]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Alfred Farrington II (via Multiply)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Check out my Multiply site

Thanks Alfred, also thanks for the private request too.

You're best defense on this is going to be a) claim stupidity, b)
claim someone got your password and took over your PC, c) claim it
wasn't you.

Best wishes, (NOT!)

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, someone wrote:
> Add me to the list of never-saw-that. In addition, I just checked the
> nanog archives, and there isn't an announcement of that type in the
> archives.

Below is the full email, with headers, from Monday.  Hopefully it will
put this issue to rest but somehow I doubt that. ;-)

-Jim P.

Received: by 10.90.53.15 with SMTP id b15cs245753aga;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.10.13 with SMTP id n13mr12798008pyi.30.1211238167720;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [198.108.95.20])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s59si4779396pyh.13.2008.05.19.16.02.47;
Mon, 19 May 2008 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] designates 198.108.95.20 as permitted
sender) client-ip=198.108.95.20;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best
guess record for domain of [EMAIL PROTECTED] designates
198.108.95.20 as permitted sender)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=s0.nanog.org)
by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1JyENK-0006V5-UV; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:38 +
Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195])
by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1JyENI-0006UC-1L
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:36 +
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,512,1204482600"; d="scan'208";a="107943185"
Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161])
by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2008 04:32:33 +0530
Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94])
by hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4JN2XlM012133
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 May 2008 07:02:33 +0800
Received: from Philip-PB.local (sin-vpn-client-20-47.cisco.com [10.68.20.47])
by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4JN2WVp007247
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 19 May 2008 23:02:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:02:58 +1000
From: Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; dkim=pass (
sig from cisco.com/hkgdkim1002 verified; );
Subject: [NANOG-announce] email subject tags and footers
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NANOG-Announce 
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi everyone,

Following the discussion on nanog-futures, we'd like to let you all know
that the [NANOG] in the subject line and the three extra info lines
mailman appends will be dropped from all future messages going to the
NANOG list, starting in around 24 hours from now.

If any of you have you changed your <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> e-mail filtering
to depend on the [NANOG] subject tag, please consider this 24 hours
notice to move to another message filtering technique.

Best wishes,

philip
(for the SC)
--


___
NANOG-announce mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] MLC post-mortem]

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps you are not that familiar with the world of Open Source,

Perhaps I am, perhaps you could have google'd my name. ;-)  Perhaps I
run other mailinglists, perhaps I know Mailman intimately, as well as
blogging software.  Perhaps I also know what GSOC projects are really
truly capable of producing, let alone NANOG theorists.   BUT... with
all those possibilities... I stand by my earlier statement that NANOG
MLC shouldn't proceed down an uncertain development path.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] MLC post-mortem]

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I think that all posting access to the list should be
> removed. Yes, nobody should be able to post messages to the list.
> Instead, posting would be via a blog website, and the blog messages
> would then be echoed into various NANOG mailing lists based on
> which blog category was being used. Subscribers could then construct
> their own personal NANOG list by subscribing to the blog categories
> that they are interested in. Threading would work very well since
> on a blog, you have to identify the thread before you post.
>
> There are literally hundreds of blogging software packages out
> there, many of them blog construction tool kits with dozens
> of plugins available. Given the fact that the list runs on Mailman
> which is written in Python, I suggest that folks have a look at
> this list of Python blogging software:
> http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonBlogSoftware
> My sense is that PyBlosxom and the Django-based stuff are the
> more popular. It's too late to do this as a Summer Of Code project
> but the same principal could be applied, i.e. find a university
> student, put them together with a technical mentor, and give them
> access to the server needed to test and trial the blog.
>
> If the SC isn't interested in testing this right now, then I suggest
> that the new MLC give serious consideration to taking this on as
> a project.
>
> --Michael Dillon

I'll say it You, M Dillon, are out of touch with what NANOG is.
NANOG is not a mailinglist software development company/group, nor
should it be developing it's own custom one-off of off-the-shelf
products.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [NANOG] [NANOG-announce] Mail List Committee announcement

[Jim Popovitch]

Someone wrote:
> To resolve the issue of accuracy...

How about, in order to progress, everybody (EVERYBODY!!) ignore
how we got here and focus on the future.   These NANOG bickering
sessions are making some here look like their own children.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] reply-to

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:57 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  To echo an earlier comment, how much development work would be
>  involved in allowing list members to individually specify whether
>  they want:
>
>  Tags in the subject line,
>  Additional message footers,
>  Reply-to headers

Not as much as you might think  Mailman supports nested-lists
(Umbrella lists).   The solution could be to create nanog-robust@ and
change nanog@ to have "lite" functionality (headers, subject line,
reply-to, etc.)  Then you would subscribe nanog-robust@ to nanog@, and
set the reply-to for nanog-robust@ to nanog@   Folks could then
subscribe to nanog@ or nanog-robust@ and In the end everybody wins...
except the guys/gals who have to maintain it. ;-)

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Sean Figgins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Popovitch wrote:
>  > Some advice, once given to me by a NANOGer, is:
>  >
>  >"just use .procmailrc to change your headers as you see fit"
>
>  Not everyone that reads NANOG runs their own mail servers, or have
>  access to procmail.  Personally, I HATE procmail.  It's almost as bad as
>  manually writing the rules in sendmail.  I have the option to use, or
>  not to use procmail, as I run my own server, and that of my company, but
>  I still prefer that NANOG mailing list puts the tag in the header.

LOL!  I'm too lazy (tired?) to search the archives... but I would bet
that my response back then was near similar to your response today.
Please understand I only recommended procmail as a tongue-in-cheek
work around.

>  I wish that everyone would just adjust themselves to change rather than
>  me stuck in the past with excuses like "it wastes space", or "it
>  violates XXX principle".  Those arguments always sound like a bunch of
>  rules lawyers that don't actually care about the content of the list as
>  much as the proving themselves right, and thus better than everyone else.

:-)  Generally I Agree.   One counter-point:  as the intertubes are
focusing on smaller and smaller devices, Subject line realestate is
becoming a valid concern.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  The subject line I see in my MUA is
>
>  "re: [nanog-futures] Subject line Ta"
>
>  for the nanog list, it is:
>
>  "Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD bla"

Some advice, once given to me by a NANOGer, is:

   "just use .procmailrc to change your headers as you see fit"

;-)

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] [BULK] Re: Mailing list procedures for reviewby the NANOG community

[Jim Popovitch]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:17 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>
>  >  I realize that the MLC doesn't issue a lot of warnings, but that
>  >  is partly because they don't want to feel like policemen. Perhaps
>  >  they would intervene more often, if they had some carrot-like
>  >  tools in their arsenal as well as the big stick.
>  >
>
>  The MLC issued SIX formal warnings last quarter.

How many MLC carrots were dangled?  ;-)

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Turning mime off???

[Jim Popovitch]

(Here is the complete email)

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:30 -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We should be advertising the changes to the list and vet what few core
> options need to be vetted.

My recommendations:

Under: Admin -> Content Filtering
  * filter_content = Yes
  * filter_mime_types = application/ms-tnef
  * pass_filename_extensions = sig asc
  * collapse_alternatives = Yes
  * convert_html_to_plaintext = Yes
  * filter_action = Discard

Under: Admin -> Privacy -> Subscription Rules:
subscribe_policy = Confirm
unsubscribe_policy = No
private_roster = List Admin Only
obscure_addresses = Yes

Under: Admin -> Privacy -> Sender filters:
default_member_moderation = Ye
member_moderation_action = Hold
generic_nonmember_action = Reject
forward_auto_discards = No

Under: Admin -> Privacy -> Recpient filters:
require_explicit_destination = Yes

Under: Admin -> Privacy -> Spam Filters:
   header_filter_rules:
Spam Filter Rule #1:  (Action = Reject)
Subject: .*out of .*office.*
Subject: .*is prepared for DELETION.*
Subject: .*[Oo]ut.*[Oo]ffice.*
Subject: .*[Oo]n [Ll]eave.*
Subject: .*\*SPAM\*.*
Subject: .*has [Ll]imited [Aa]ccess.*
Subject: .*est en cong.*
Subject: .*[Ii]s [Oo]n [Tt]ravel.*
Subject: .*is [Oo]ut but [Aa]ccepting [Ii]nput.*
Subject: .*is on a business trip.*
Spam Filter Rule #2: (Action =  Hold)
Subject: .*Confidential
Subject: .*our private photos
Subject: .*vacation.*
Subject: .*holiday.*
Subject: .*theoffice.*
Subject: .*[Oo]ficina.*
Subject: .*[Hh]oliday
Subject: .*[Vv]acation
Subject: .*[Aa]utomated [Rr]esponse
Subject: .*[Aa]uto[Rr]eply
Subject: .*ooo until.*
Subject: .*[Rr]eturning.*
Subject: .*OOO.*
Subject: .*[Tt]raveling.*
Subject: .*[Tt]ravelling.*
Subject: .*[Bb]usiness [Tt]rip.*
Subject: .*nie ma mnie.*

Under: Admin -> Topics:
topics_enabled = Disabled


Let me know if you need any assistance with Mailman, or Mailman patches
(htdig integration, login passwd auto focus, auto approve by domain,
daily mbox, archive header by thread, etc.)

-Jim P.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Turning mime off???

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:30 -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We should be advertising the changes to the list and vet what few core
> options need to be vetted.

My recommendations:

Under: Admin -> Content Filtering
  * filter_content = Yes
  * filter_mime_types = application/ms-tnef
  * pass_filename_extensions = sig asc
  * collapse_alternatives = Yes
  * convert_html_to_plaintext = Yes
  * filter_action = Discard


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage

[Jim Popovitch]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:56 -0600, J Bacher wrote:
> Absent an inability to have a private conversation as an admin, what do you 
> (all) suggest?  An admin email to the list directed to that individual?  Do 
> nothing, apply the three strikes you're out when applicable without any 
> notification?

How about "From: "J Bacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".   Merit, or whoever,
should be able to securely setup those capabilities.

-Jim P.




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

[Nanog-futures] nanog AUP wrt subject evolution (was: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet)

[Jim Popovitch]

On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:16 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:11:33PM -0500, Alfred Farrington II wrote:
> >  keep politics/culture/society out of it. Maintain as *internet
> > operations* list. There's enough of this in the world already.
> 
>   I suspect that's a bit too purist.  there are other things
> that have implications to operations, eg: Calea politics and reality
> may make operations folks do things differently.  I'm not suggesting
> that nanog be a forum for lobbying the various governments in the region,
> but we don't operate in a vacuum either.

IMHO, the prudent AUP approach should be focused on maintaining the
Subject line with the Body.  Clearly everybody has something to add to
anything posted.  The big problem is wanting to listen/learn about
something on IPv6, only to discover that %50 of the posts aren't aligned
with the Subject.  Each receiver can then kill-thread as they see
appropriate, and everybody will be happy.

-Jim P.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: RE:autoresponders

[Jim Popovitch]

On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 05:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The NANOG list could ensure that the From, To and Cc lines never have
> any addresses in them other than the one instance of [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Here's why that (sadly) won't work:  Too many MUAs support automatically
storing From: in the address book.  So... many unsuspecting users might
try to privately email a NANOG friend and wind up posting to the list.

-Jim P.

Re: [nanog-admin] [Fwd: Out of Office AutoReply: Sun Project Blackbox / Portable Data Center]

[Jim Popovitch]

On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 11:10 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> I'm seeing these too. The community determined that unless it goes to
> the entire list, a posting to the list, that it is a matter between
> the poster and the sender.
> 
> If you need some help configuring your mailer to drop all vacation
> messages, please let me know.

Hmmm... I'd have to say that seems like reverse logic.  ;-)  I don't
want to reject all vacation messages, just the ones from mailing list
list traffic.  So, in order to be successful I'll need a list of all
nanog subscribers so that I can make sure they can't send me vacation
responses.  :-)  My point being this:  rather than thousands of
subscribers, individually doing the same thing, why not a policy? 

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:15 -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 
> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-
> 
> Members must do at least one of the following:
> 
>   -Subscribe/post with your work email address
>   -Use your proper name in your email address 
> (i.e. Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   -Identify yourself in your email sig
>   -Inform the list admins of your correct identity
> -
> 
> 
> : -Subscribe/post with your work email address
>  
> No, not acceptable.  Some companies don't want you to use their email service 
> for things like the NANOG list.
> 
> 
> 
> : -Identify yourself in your email sig
> 
> No, some folks don't do sigs.

OK, that still leaves 2 other options for the membership.  No one plan
fits everyone... every NANOG'er should know that.  Flexibility (in the
requirements as well as by the members) is the key.

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:47 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :)

On some Vendor independent lists that I run we have this requirement:

Members must do at least one of the following:

-Subscribe/post with your work email address
-Use your proper name in your email address 
(i.e. Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Identify yourself in your email sig
-Inform the list admins of your correct identity

Yes, we do have some anonymous posters, but the admins know their real
ID and their posts are tracked for positive content.  Complaints, humor,
and OT posts aren't allowed very long from publicly unknown posters.
The lists have been running for 7+ years without any problems from all
the Vendor lawyers waiting in the wings.

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 03:02 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> Before everyone goes all happy and tell me I'm nuts for even suggesting 
> this, I'd like to say...
> 
> The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the posters
> and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names and not
> aliases.

Why not just make a better process for nanog-post.  When someone
subscribes to nanog-post, auto-respond with a polite email asking them
to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with some identifying info (real name, location,
job, intentions).   Then the MLC can review for appropriateness, and
archive for future reference.

-Jim P.

Re: Proposed AUP Enforcement policy

[Jim Popovitch]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:39 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> b. Vote process detailed: upon discussion, MLC chair SHALL call a vote.
> Each MLC member MUST cast vote as follows: "no action"/"suspend"/"ban".
> Vote for "ban" counts also as vote for "suspend". If there is a simple
> majority voting for "suspend" (but no majority to ban), user SHOULD be
> suspended (for 30 days). If there is a majority to ban, user SHOULD be
> banned.

30 days seems a bit much for most of the NANOG way-off-topic
discussions.  I would say 1 week cooling off period would satisfy most
circumstances.   Also, banning people from mailinglists is pretty
difficult.  In fact, I would say that it's downright impossible and very
time consuming.  Further, banning creates a "challenge" for the
defendant, sometimes causing them to go to massive lengths to display
how they can circumvent, or just vent elsewhere about, the policy.  I
would propose that there not be a stated "ban" policy, rather a 2nd
layer of suspend, perhaps for 30 days.  Let the  MLC handle bannings on
a case-by-case level as needed, if needed.  To date I haven't seen any
one person who needs to be outright banned.  Most just need a few days
cooling off.  

Now if you still want to ban folks... ban those that use Reply-All to
respond directly to people who are also subscribed to the list. :-)

-Jim P.

Re: Broadband routers and botnets - being proactive

[Jim Popovitch]

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 22:56 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm referring to bloggish-type posts. I'm [and probably many others on 
> nanog-l] are glad you stopped. Sorry to lump you together with Gadi!

Frankly, from the sidelines, Fergie and Gadi both pale in comparison to
the often brunt and bold calls for their dismissal.  In those instances,
I do think that Fergie's and Gadi's posts are much more on topic for
NANOG then the condemning onslaught that follows.

-Jim P.