RE: mail operators list
The idea of dividing into specialties seems to upset a few people. I'm not sure if that's because they're afraid they'll miss some discussion, or if it's because they're afraid somebody will miss them discussing something. If the former, specialty lists shouldn't cause them any problems -- they can just join them all. If the latter, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. Blogs handle specialties a lot better with tags. If the new list is not just mail-ops but includes all Internet service ops stuff which is peripheral to the core list, it allows us to experiment with tags. If tags are included in subject lines, it makes I easier for procmailers to filter them. Or people can subscribe to an RSS feed with only the tags that they want. Then again, maybe what we really need to do is to think even bigger in terms of getting all the content from all the other special purpose lists, flowing through some kind of a NANOG newscenter which tags them and sorts them and creates a whole set of tagged RSS feeds for people to subscribe to. --Michael Dillon
RE: mail operators list
I wonder whether a better solution might be to create a second NANOG list for all the non-core operational issues from mail to P2p to botnets. People who are only interested in the traditional NANOG core, can stay away. People who are interested in broader operational issues can join the list and ignore threads that are not relevant. -- Wasn't that already tried with nanog-offtopic? (or whatever the actual list name was...) I am referring to a NANOG on-topic list where the definition of on topic is different from the core list. Not some cute joke list run by somebody else so that they can win arguments on the core list. For this to work, the list has to be an official NANOG activity supported by the SC, the MLC, the website, etc. It needs to have its own ML charter and FAQ. It would be interesting if, instead of a typical email list archive, the postings were all flowed into some kind of a blog with an RSS feed. This would accomplish the same goals of an email archive, but also offer the possibility of subscribing to the list as an RSS feed. And if the blog also allowed comments and flowed them back to the list, people would get the best of both worlds. Note that I am not suggesting that we try this technology enhancement on the core list, but on a broader Internet service operations list. --Michael Dillon
Re: mail operators list
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Joe Abley wrote: 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. I don't see any reason not to try this. The NANOG list is currently a mess. Sometimes it's arguably an off-topic mess. Other times, it's just too many people saying the same things over and over, such that if anybody said anything new and interesting they'd get lost in the noise. If it had any value as the one true list, I think that's long gone. The idea of dividing into specialties seems to upset a few people. I'm not sure if that's because they're afraid they'll miss some discussion, or if it's because they're afraid somebody will miss them discussing something. If the former, specialty lists shouldn't cause them any problems -- they can just join them all. If the latter, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. I don't know if dividing the list into specialty lists would fix the current problems. I suspect the real issue is that there's a size of mailing list beyond which allowing unmoderated posting just doesn't work anymore, and we've hit it. But I think if i could subscribe to some lists with more in depth discussions of my specialties, and could let the drivel and discussions of areas of network operations that I don't work on happen elsewhere, I'd be much happier than I am with the current state. -Steve
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
