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?
