Re: mail operators list
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote: At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by- four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list. I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l.
Re: mail operators list
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote: On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote: I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different) nanog subscribers. Given that observation, creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for the discussion of e-mail operations as a bounded experiment seems like a reasonable thing to do. Excellent idea guys. -Jim P.
RE: mail operators list
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Popovitch Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:27 AM To: nanog-futures Subject: Re: mail operators list On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 13:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote: On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote: I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different) nanog subscribers. Given that observation, creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for the discussion of e-mail operations as a bounded experiment seems like a reasonable thing to do. Excellent idea guys. -Jim P. I'm all in. I would love to discuss the issues but I don't want to start a not on topic thread on NANOG. Mike
Re: mail operators list
At 12:55 PM 10/30/2007, Andy Davidson wrote: On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote: At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by- four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list. I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. I guess my preference would be for NANOG as an organization to recognize that a single mailing list (not counting the futures list) and a focus solely on packet delivery and related routing issues is not representative of the mission of network operators. So my personal opinion is there is a place for discussion of the impact of email issues, p2p issues and so forth within the NANOG community, as these significantly impact the NANOG community, but the NANOG list itself is not the venue. There is a need for discussion in other areas too, such as IPv6 deployment (i.e. what the IETF does not cover, how to actually make stuff work, rather than how to design protocols) and so forth. NANOG could, and I think should, take a larger role in discussing best practices in operations of networks.
Re: mail operators list
On 10/30/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote: I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different) nanog subscribers. Given that observation, creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for the discussion of e-mail operations as a bounded experiment seems like a reasonable thing to do. We've already talked about this. It was left at possible. I don't agree that operational issues related to the Internet needs to be segregated from the main list, just the politics and kookery. I'm not in favor of mailops@ since opening up such a topic as a free for all is a recipe for disaster. Spam-l is well established and accepts operators. Go west young man. Otherwise, use your kill file, Luke. Martin Hannigan NANOG MLC Memeber
Re: mail operators list
On 10/30/07, William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/30/07, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/30/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30-Oct-2007, at 12:55, Andy Davidson wrote: I'm trying to understand your point here - you believe that it will be a more free-for-all as a separate list than it is on the nanog list? I would think that separating it out would provide some relief from the nanog msg volume issue that has long been an issue for the general community. Why wouldn't divide and conquer work here ? What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is interesting and relevant. -M
Re: mail operators list
Martin Hannigan wrote: What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is interesting and relevant. Since what people want to talk about is mostly off-topic for the nanog@ list, does this mean that NANOG itself is no longer interested in being the venue for network operators and the issues? Operating a network is not longer limited to the size of the routing table and how to tweak the knobs in BGP. Daniel Senie wrote: I guess my preference would be for NANOG as an organization to recognize that a single mailing list (not counting the futures list) and a focus solely on packet delivery and related routing issues is not representative of the mission of network operators. So my personal opinion is there is a place for discussion of the impact of email issues, p2p issues and so forth within the NANOG community, as these significantly impact the NANOG community, but the NANOG list itself is not the venue. There is a need for discussion in other areas too, such as IPv6 deployment (i.e. what the IETF does not cover, how to actually make stuff work, rather than how to design protocols) and so forth. It seems that the current practice is to direct topics to the nanog-futures@ list, but that seems to be a mistake to me. I'm certain that not all parties that would be interested in various topics are going to be subscribed to futures, and if everyone was, wouldn't it just end up as a replacement for [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would certainly support the approach of NANOG hosting multiple mailing lists. Really, it's a requirement if NANOG wants to continue to be the venue for network operators. It the current practice of directing discussions to other venues persists, then the question of there really being a need for the NANOG venue itself is in question. -Sean (Please respond only through the list)
Re: mail operators list
Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different) nanog subscribers. what large subject does not fall in this category? this is just life when you have a large community. randy
Re: mail operators list
The NANOG mailing list has never been in good order. The NANOG meetings have always had complaints. The NANOG community is composed of disparate parties with disparate interests, each convinced that their interests are the only ones of operation relevance. it would all be so much simpler if the humans were removed from the equation. such funny monkeys we. randy
Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
personally i find prohibited to be unnecessarily strong. sc hat on looks pretty much as expected from meeting and discussion between sc and mlc. What do you see that's different from what the MLC initial vote approved, what the community approved, and what you got?
What can you use DSCP for?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, John Kristoff wrote: How much has really changed? Do you (or if someone on these big nets wants to own up offlist) have pointers to indicate that deployment is significantly different now than they were a couple years ago? Even better, perhaps someone can do a preso at a future meeting on their recent deployment experience? I did one a couple years and I haven't heard of things improving markedly since then, but then I am still recovering from having drunk from that jug of kool-aid. :-) Once you get past the religious debates, DSCP can be very useful to large, complicated networks with many entry and exit points. Think about how large networks use tools such as BGP Communities to manage routing policies across many different types of interconnections. You may want to consider how networks use similar tools such as DSCP to mark packets entering networks from internal, external, source address validated, management, etc interfaces. There are limited code-points so you can't be too clever, but even knowing on the other side of then network that a packet entered the network through a spoofable/non-spoofable network interface may be very useful.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/29/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with specific information other than to suggest a review of the questionnaire we supplied and try to determine where your mailing practices may be improved upon. In other words, fix your forwarding a lot better (and possibly segregate it from your main mail stream, clearly label the forwarding IP as a forwarder, etc) Yahoo arent really in the business of teaching people how to do a better job. If that sounds like arrogance .. srs Fix your forwarding a lot better. Not sure what this means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. What are the addresses of the machines? -M 192.136.64.0/24, with the 3 main machines being at 108, 116, 156 and lesser machines at 204, 212, etc. Tuc/TBOH
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fix your forwarding a lot better. Not sure what this means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its Yes, that's just how forwarding and .forwards work. And if you mix inbound email (much dirtier than outbound email even if you run a secure shop) into a mail stream that includes email sent out by your clients, you potentially have random botnet spam, spam from sbl listed spammers etc (in other words, a lot of block on sight stuff) leaking through your IP, the same IP that a bunch of your other customers use to mail out to their aunt mary on yahoo. AH, I see the confusion. We are a managed server hosting company, not a Cable/DSL/T#/Dialup provider. The only way mail gets sent out of here is Webmail, FormMail and Mail exploder. I'm pretty sure none of our systems have been comprimised and forwards mail that we don't know about. The numbers from that one .forward are enough to screw up the rest of your numbers, a 5% or less complaint rate on email from your IP (and believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. Except for maybe unfortunately backscatter from people CLAIMING to originate email from our clients, our outbound should be fairly low volume and reasonably clean. Dealing with tier 1 support anywhere (not the least of where is yahoo) is always a pain. Which is why what I am suggesting is avoidance and prevention rather than going around alternatively begging yahoo to fix something or accusing them on nanog of being arrogant. I'm not begging Yahoo to fix something, just to accept our mail. I'm doing the best I can, and I'm sure to the DETRIMENT of the user, to cut down on the spam, but short of having someone physically inspect all email for spam and backscatter I really can't do much else (Except get the user to have a local Webmail which I know they don't want). Tuc/TBOH
Re: Dynamically Changing Exit Policy (iBGP)
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:55:24AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Benjamin Howell wrote: On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:53:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote: You can nail down your announcements to external peers by tying their network blocks to a route-of-last resort on one of your loopbacks. This will prevent flapping externally. Point taken, but it's actually difficult to nail down all of our routes. We have some lone /24's that are not subnetted and thus cannot be used with an 'ip route ... null0' statement. When WAN connectivity drops, the routes flap if we don't have a stable iBGP session. Thus I'd like to steer well clear of severing the iBGP session. Not subnetting them doesn't mean you can't ip route a.b.c.d 255.255.255.0 null0 250 while still routing the /24s internally (with lower metric) or having them connected on some interface. Whoops, some oversights make you feel like an idiot. You're right. Only a single internal /30 route will be removed when an interface goes down. I can't come up with a route-map implementation that would add/remove the weights to the routes already received from our eBGP neighbors. If I'm missing something, please let me know. ... I'd like to dynamically change from best-exit to a hot potato exit policy when an internal DS3 fails. We fail over to a much lower bandwidth link and would like to avoid sending anything but internal traffic over that link. If it's not already clear, this change needs to happen automatically. Are you talking about a single internal DS3, or the more general case of if any of our internal DS3s are down, we need to route differently? If it's a simple case of two DS3 connected routers which are iBGP peers and also have directly connected eBGP peers, could you use route-maps to set ip next-hop on iBGP exchanged external routes (setting the ip next-hop to be the IP of the other end of the internal DS3, with a second IP of an eBGP neighbor interface)? I haven't tried it, but it seems like it might do what you want. Indeed, I'll give it some thought. That seems like it should work. In my case, it is just two DS3 connected routers. I figured I'd leave the question open-ended though for other readers' benefit. Another possiblility (I've never tried) would be to configure multiple iBGP sessions...one using loopback IPs, the other using the DS3 interface IPs, exchanging internal routes over both sessions, while exchanging external routes over only the second. If the DS3 goes down, the session exchanging external routes dies. I'm not sure you can do this, but I think by having different peer/endpoint IPs (loopbacks for one session, serial interface IPs for the other), it may work. Actually this suggestion seems to be a common theme. I hadn't considered this possibility and it seems like it should work fine. David Burns also suggested this in an email that wasn't directed to the list. Thanks for everybody's input. I should have some workable options now. -- Ben Howell
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 29, 2007 11:01 PM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fix your forwarding a lot better. Not sure what this means. My machines are MX's for the clients domain. They accept it, and either forward it around locally to one of the processing MX's or ARE one one of the processing MX's. Its Yes, that's just how forwarding and .forwards work. And if you mix inbound email (much dirtier than outbound email even if you run a secure shop) into a mail stream that includes email sent out by your clients, you potentially have random botnet spam, spam from sbl listed spammers etc (in other words, a lot of block on sight stuff) leaking through your IP, the same IP that a bunch of your other customers use to mail out to their aunt mary on yahoo. AH, I see the confusion. We are a managed server hosting company, not a Cable/DSL/T#/Dialup provider. The only way mail gets sent out of here is Webmail, FormMail and Mail exploder. So no mail would ever be coming inbound and then being forwarded on? That seems...unlikely. I'm pretty sure none of our systems have been compromised and forwards mail that we don't know about. Yet your sending IP reputation is poor Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove lists from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
Re: What can you use DSCP for?
Triple play Solutions use DSCP all over the place. Lots of differenciated services, especially when subscriber management comes into play. Triple play is turning into 4 and 5xplay, then add the varying degrees of service and bundles available across the different services, and different requirements between the different data services (vodn internet, content storage, backup, sharing). Very useful tool. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Kristoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu Sent: Tue Oct 30 07:04:52 2007 Subject: What can you use DSCP for? On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, John Kristoff wrote: How much has really changed? Do you (or if someone on these big nets wants to own up offlist) have pointers to indicate that deployment is significantly different now than they were a couple years ago? Even better, perhaps someone can do a preso at a future meeting on their recent deployment experience? I did one a couple years and I haven't heard of things improving markedly since then, but then I am still recovering from having drunk from that jug of kool-aid. :-) Once you get past the religious debates, DSCP can be very useful to large, complicated networks with many entry and exit points. Think about how large networks use tools such as BGP Communities to manage routing policies across many different types of interconnections. You may want to consider how networks use similar tools such as DSCP to mark packets entering networks from internal, external, source address validated, management, etc interfaces. There are limited code-points so you can't be too clever, but even knowing on the other side of then network that a packet entered the network through a spoofable/non-spoofable network interface may be very useful.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
I'm pretty sure none of our systems have been compromised and forwards mail that we don't know about. Yet your sending IP reputation is poor Do you actually have data that confirms that? We've had random problems mailing Hotmail (frequently), Yahoo! (infrequently), and other places where the mail stream consists of a low volume (10/day) of transactional and support e-mail directly arising from user-purchased services, on an IP address that had never previously sent e-mail - ever. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. While there really should be some sort of particularly painful and embarrassing punishment for this sort of jackass** we just kill their .forward and try to clue-by-four them when they call. Sigh. On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four me if I've missed it. --chuck goolsbee **who seem to have all been drawn like moths to a flame into the companies my company has acquired over the years... as if to punish ME for some past transgression!
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove lists from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list.
Re: mail operators list
On 10/30/07, Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote: At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by- four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list. I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. I have a sinking fear it'll be overrun with loud people who aren't actually responsible for anything more than a single IP at most, like SPAM-L, but I suppose it's worth a shot. Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove lists from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
Re: Any help for Yahoo! Mail arrogance?
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: believe me, if your user is jackass enough to click report spam on email that comes through his .forward the complaints can go up real high) .. is enough to get your IP blocked. While there really should be some sort of particularly painful and embarrassing punishment for this sort of jackass** we just kill their .forward and try to clue-by-four them when they call. Sigh. On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by-four me if I've missed it. Hi Chuck, Mail problems that are operational in nature are more than welcome here. The politics and kookery of spam policy and fighting should be directed elsewhere. Best Regards, Martin Hannigan NANOG MLC Member
BellSouth.net Mail Operator? (was:Re: Any help for Yahoo!...)
Martin Hannigan said: Mail problems that are operational in nature are more than welcome here. Thanks Martin. So... If there are any bellsouth.net mail ops people here, please contact me privately. We had an out of control .forward user who we have larted/fixed permanently (well over two weeks ago), but bellsouth.net is still refusing mail from some of our outbound mail servers. All we see in the waiting/rejected queues is legit mail. We're a webhost/colo provider, in no way pushing tinned meat products. Should be easy to fix, but I'm not getting traction from your end. Regards, --chuck goolsbee answering at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 206-838-1630, ext 2001
Re: RIPE is just more fun.
Michael Greb wrote: Barrett Lyon wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 I yanked the mp3 out of the youtube flv: http://blyon.com/routers_died.mp3 -Barrett Better, now we just need a higher quality MP3 from the source :/ I've put the MP3 (the best quality we've got, unfortunately... had we known what to expect, we'd have increased the encoding quality a bit) up at http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/ripe55song.mp3. Regards, James Sometimes it's much cheaper and easier to make people think that something works rather than actually make it work. After all, the result is, in all important aspects, the same. -- Douglas Adams
Re: mail operators list
Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve pushing packets from A to B. And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that operational mail / spam filtering issues are perfectly on topic. New list not particularly necessary I think .. but sure, a spam or mailops bof at nanog would be a good idea. I (or well, APCAUCE) have been running a spam conference track at APRICOT for the past few years now .. srs On Oct 30, 2007 11:02 PM, Al Iverson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would support the creation of a mail-operators list ( agenda time for a mailops bof, since a lot of networks are small enough to mean that netops and sysops are often the same guys) if it's deemed to be offtopic on nanog-l. I have a sinking fear it'll be overrun with loud people who aren't actually responsible for anything more than a single IP at most, like SPAM-L, but I suppose it's worth a shot.
Re: mail operators list
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve pushing packets from A to B. And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that operational mail / spam filtering issues are perfectly on topic. New list not particularly necessary I think .. but sure, a spam or mailops bof at nanog would be a good idea. I (or well, APCAUCE) have been running a spam conference track at APRICOT for the past few years now .. This has veered from operational discussion into the realm of meta-discussion about the list, so let's move it to nanog-futures. Reply-to has been set accordingly in this email, please respect it. MLC's position is that anything that is acceptable for the conference is acceptable on the list. Mail operations are on-topic, although tangentially. Spam filtering is definitely off-topic. -alex [mlc chair]
