Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Brian Raaen wrote: >> Agreed... Mailman has a feature for emergency moderation of all post, created >> just for flame wars like this. > > I rate this one a 2 on a 10 scale of toastiness. > > But I think I probably have a much higher threshold for discussions like > this, due to copious experience with Usenet decades ago. Unless they > encompass at least a thousand messages and last over a month, I consider > them just a momentary blip. > > > As to the appropriateness of the discussion, I can see where once it's > moved past immediate-operational concerns, it's arguably off-topic for > the main NANOG mailing list. But...I think it's a discussion that needs > to happen *somewhere*, and needs to happen with the involvement of some I hope to be able to share more on some of the behind-the-scenes, soon. I think NANOG played a crucial part in what happened, and that can not be washed aside. > of the same people who populate the nanog list. (And probably with the > involvement of some people who don't.) > > I know some folks have suggested that this should be left to law > enforcement, but that's foolish. Law enforcement against abusers is > erratic, slow and incompetent at best; it tends to only happen when one > of four things is true: (a) someone's running for office (b) positive > PR is needed (c) a government has been publicly embarrrassed and needs > a scapegoat or (d) someone with sufficient political connections, money, > and/or power wants it. And even when it happens, it's ineffective: > for example, token prosecutions of spammers have done nothing to make > the spam problem any better. Multiple spyware vendors have settled > their cases for pitifully small sums and then gone right back to work. > > But even if that weren't true, even if law enforcement worldwide had > adequate staff, resources, training, clue, etc. to attempt something > useful -- the legal framework really doesn't exist to deal with a spyware > vendor in Italy using web sites in the US and targeting users via > outbound spam servers in China. Abusers are very well aware of this, > which is why some of them have distributed their operations accordingly, > and why they make copious use of dummy corporations, mail drops, etc. > > And even if THAT were addressed (which is unlikely in our lifetimes)... > this is OUR network. We built it. We're responsible for it, and part > of that responsibility is seeing that it's not the origin or conduit > for obvious, egregious, abusive activities. We shouldn't just punt that > responsibility to someone else because we don't like the idea of dealing > with it. I know it's unpleasant, onerous, time-consuming, annoying > and everything else -- but we should do it anyway. > > ---Rsk > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Brian Raaen wrote: > Agreed... Mailman has a feature for emergency moderation of all post, created > just for flame wars like this. I rate this one a 2 on a 10 scale of toastiness. But I think I probably have a much higher threshold for discussions like this, due to copious experience with Usenet decades ago. Unless they encompass at least a thousand messages and last over a month, I consider them just a momentary blip. As to the appropriateness of the discussion, I can see where once it's moved past immediate-operational concerns, it's arguably off-topic for the main NANOG mailing list. But...I think it's a discussion that needs to happen *somewhere*, and needs to happen with the involvement of some of the same people who populate the nanog list. (And probably with the involvement of some people who don't.) I know some folks have suggested that this should be left to law enforcement, but that's foolish. Law enforcement against abusers is erratic, slow and incompetent at best; it tends to only happen when one of four things is true: (a) someone's running for office (b) positive PR is needed (c) a government has been publicly embarrrassed and needs a scapegoat or (d) someone with sufficient political connections, money, and/or power wants it. And even when it happens, it's ineffective: for example, token prosecutions of spammers have done nothing to make the spam problem any better. Multiple spyware vendors have settled their cases for pitifully small sums and then gone right back to work. But even if that weren't true, even if law enforcement worldwide had adequate staff, resources, training, clue, etc. to attempt something useful -- the legal framework really doesn't exist to deal with a spyware vendor in Italy using web sites in the US and targeting users via outbound spam servers in China. Abusers are very well aware of this, which is why some of them have distributed their operations accordingly, and why they make copious use of dummy corporations, mail drops, etc. And even if THAT were addressed (which is unlikely in our lifetimes)... this is OUR network. We built it. We're responsible for it, and part of that responsibility is seeing that it's not the origin or conduit for obvious, egregious, abusive activities. We shouldn't just punt that responsibility to someone else because we don't like the idea of dealing with it. I know it's unpleasant, onerous, time-consuming, annoying and everything else -- but we should do it anyway. ---Rsk ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Pete Templin wrote: > Gadi Evron wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, kris foster wrote: >>> Agreed as well >> >> Agreed. If someone has a relevant update on the mess, such as new transit >> providers--okay. But the meta-discussion has become unproductive. > > Why would new transit providers even matter? End the discussion, please. > There's no sense blasting to 10,000 recipients when there's news about one > transit provider - all of us can make our own decisions with our own > networks. Exactly. Thus, updates which can help operational security should be welcome. The rest is just noise now. Gadi. > > pt > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Gadi Evron wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, kris foster wrote: >> Agreed as well > > Agreed. If someone has a relevant update on the mess, such as new > transit providers--okay. But the meta-discussion has become unproductive. Why would new transit providers even matter? End the discussion, please. There's no sense blasting to 10,000 recipients when there's news about one transit provider - all of us can make our own decisions with our own networks. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Brian Raaen wrote: > Agreed... Mailman has a feature for emergency moderation of all post, created > just for flame wars like this. I don't think it's a flame war, just an active discussion most have something to say about. I still think it should stop at this point but while it is no longer productive it isn't destructive. > > -- > > Brian Raaen > Network Engineer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Thursday 25 September 2008, Pete Templin wrote: >> Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the >> network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please >> find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? >> >> 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one >> don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources >> necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". >> >> pt >> >> ___ >> Nanog-futures mailing list >> Nanog-futures@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures >> > > > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, kris foster wrote: > Agreed as well Agreed. If someone has a relevant update on the mess, such as new transit providers--okay. But the meta-discussion has become unproductive. Gadi. > > Kris > (not speaking as MLC) > > On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Koch, Christian wrote: > >> Agreed. >> >> I've disabled nanog-l delivery until the nonsense stops. >> >> It's just flat out annoying now >> >> -Christian >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Pete Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:46 PM >> To: Nanog Futures >> Subject: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess >> now? >> >> Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the >> network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we >> please >> find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? >> >> 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for >> one >> >> don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources >> necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". >> >> pt >> >> ___ >> Nanog-futures mailing list >> Nanog-futures@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures >> >> ___ >> Nanog-futures mailing list >> Nanog-futures@nanog.org >> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Agreed... Mailman has a feature for emergency moderation of all post, created just for flame wars like this. -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thursday 25 September 2008, Pete Templin wrote: > Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the > network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please > find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? > > 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one > don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources > necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". > > pt > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Agreed as well Kris (not speaking as MLC) On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Koch, Christian wrote: > Agreed. > > I've disabled nanog-l delivery until the nonsense stops. > > It's just flat out annoying now > > -Christian > > > -Original Message- > From: Pete Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:46 PM > To: Nanog Futures > Subject: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess > now? > > Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the > network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we > please > find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? > > 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for > one > > don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources > necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". > > pt > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Agreed. I've disabled nanog-l delivery until the nonsense stops. It's just flat out annoying now -Christian -Original Message- From: Pete Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 2:46 PM To: Nanog Futures Subject: [Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now? Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
[Nanog-futures] Can we stop the Intercage discussion mess now?
Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop? 9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one don't want my NANOG conference fees going towards the resources necessary to sustain this crazy "discussion". pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
