Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
There are many 'websites' or apps relevant to netops. -keystone -rupe ncc monitoring -potaroo -large portals (mail, communities, etc) -search engines If "I" had posted about equifax.com being down this would not be a topic. If Rod Beck did it, he'd get banned. You can't moderate style or personality tweaks for us. That's what killfiles are for. . Two posts about websites? Guys. For real? Can't we all...just...hit delete? On 5/1/09, Scott Weeks wrote: > > >> -- >> exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped? >> -- > >> That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a >> case by case basis. > -- > > The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first > reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for > community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the > MLC operates under. > --- > > > Ok, I see that was an obvious DOH! on my part. I guess it'll have to be > up to you folks. I believe if we do the below, though, a significant > portion > of OTN will stop. > > - First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time. > - Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time. > - Do it. > > Fundamentally, though, as others have mentioned the delete key is fine. > > The above is only my suggestion for the *painfully* long OT threads. Some > of those friggin` threads seem to be 100s of posts long over several days. > > scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > -- Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
> -- > exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped? > -- > That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a > case by case basis. -- The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the MLC operates under. --- Ok, I see that was an obvious DOH! on my part. I guess it'll have to be up to you folks. I believe if we do the below, though, a significant portion of OTN will stop. - First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time. - Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time. - Do it. Fundamentally, though, as others have mentioned the delete key is fine. The above is only my suggestion for the *painfully* long OT threads. Some of those friggin` threads seem to be 100s of posts long over several days. scott --- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 1, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: > > -- > Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ). > > The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to > yahoo > or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random > little > website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before > the MLC > even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many > more > posts do we want before it's stopped? > -- > > That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a > case by case basis. The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the MLC operates under. Kris MLC Chair ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Third-Fourthed. On 5/1/09, Paul Ferguson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: > >> Steve Feldman wrote: > >>> >>> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question, >>> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to >>> answers. (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html >>> for an example.) And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke >>> or otherwise off-topic comment. (We already have a working process to >>> deal with chronic abusers.) >>> >>> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic >>> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. >>> >>> Steve >> >> I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he >> said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so >> far. >> >> Anyone else seconding this? >> > > I agree with Steve, too. :-) > > - - ferg > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) > > wj8DBQFJ+3Tuq1pz9mNUZTMRAoTEAJ9pOZNtkKxeFt8s2YFYB2JgjAjtOwCgzbeB > jg1ISfrEvQBF5+rj80ln8Yo= > =Ipsj > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawgster(at)gmail.com > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ > > ___ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures > -- Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
-- Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ). The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to yahoo or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random little website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before the MLC even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped? -- That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a case by case basis. scott - - ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Fri, 1 May 2009, Jo Rhett wrote: > "The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites > and email services is off-topic unless the site provides a route-server or > similar service which directly supports network routing and connectivity." That sounds tidier, thankyou, -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Fri, 1 May 2009, Scott Weeks wrote: > First tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time. > Most will stop after getting their last word in. 1 post plus another 10 > Tell everyone the thread will be moderated. Another post > Whack the folks that just can't stop with a clue bat. OK, moderate it... > >;-) Another couple > "let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things > back on track." > yes. Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ). One problem I see is that gives a "free Pass" to people who want to start threads ( or drift existing threads) onto off-topic areas. The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to yahoo or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random little website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before the MLC even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped? Seriously, the easiest way to clean up the list would probably be to keep sending warnings to the top dozen problem posters until they are all banned from the list. In reality the MLC hasn't even sent an official reminder to anybody since January. Personally I'd like to be able to recommend NANOG to my manager as a useful resource without having to say "you have to wade through a lot of junk and off-topic posts". Most people really don't have the time to do that. -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
--- kris.fos...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Does the MLC then moderate the thread, plead with all subscribers to stop, or play whac-a-mole with individual posters (..or worse, just complain that people don't know how to filter email for themselves). At this point it looks like we moderate after a subjectively sufficient number of posts show no sign of recovery, let everyone know it's been moderated, and let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on track. - First tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time. Most will stop after getting their last word in. Tell everyone the thread will be moderated. Whack the folks that just can't stop with a clue bat. OK, moderate it... >;-) "let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on track." yes. scott -- -- --- ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: > What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic > threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. This causes a fair bit of pain (from what a number of people have told me, and my own opinion). I'd be happy to hear ideas from _everyone_ on what the solution might be. The two problems are: 1. At what point does it become a degenerate thread 2. Does the MLC then moderate the thread, plead with all subscribers to stop, or play whac-a-mole with individual posters (..or worse, just complain that people don't know how to filter email for themselves). For the MLC, we believe the answer to #2 is thread moderation, but we don't have an answer to #1. At this point it looks like we moderate after a subjectively sufficient number of posts show no sign of recovery, let everyone know it's been moderated, and let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on track. Kris MLC Chair ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
> - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion > should be redirected there. nope. i do not want to have to manage subscriptions (and get monthly mailman garbage:) from 42 mailing lists, and have to track where subject 19.43 has moved this week. do people not have mail readers with a delete subject/thread key? randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: > Steve Feldman wrote: >> >> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question, >> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to >> answers. (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html >> for an example.) And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke >> or otherwise off-topic comment. (We already have a working process to >> deal with chronic abusers.) >> >> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic >> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. >> >> Steve > > I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he > said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so > far. > > Anyone else seconding this? > I agree with Steve, too. :-) - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFJ+3Tuq1pz9mNUZTMRAoTEAJ9pOZNtkKxeFt8s2YFYB2JgjAjtOwCgzbeB jg1ISfrEvQBF5+rj80ln8Yo= =Ipsj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
> On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. please be seated when you read the next sentence. network operations is not only about routers randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Steve Feldman wrote: > My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that > enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an > infinite rathole. > > I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe: > >- If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion > should be redirected there. > > I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question, > especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to > answers. (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html > for an example.) And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke > or otherwise off-topic comment. (We already have a working process to > deal with chronic abusers.) > > What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic > threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. > > Steve I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so far. Anyone else seconding this? Gadi. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an infinite rathole. I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe: - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion should be redirected there. I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question, especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to answers. (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html for an example.) And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke or otherwise off-topic comment. (We already have a working process to deal with chronic abusers.) What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Loudness != majority ...which should be the NANOG motto! and: > I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics > related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make > rules to assault the few, IMHO. ...which seems to be what most of the preceding comments have boiled down to, in one way or another. Would anyone care to make a case for the opposite? Steve (SC member and MLC liaison) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
And
Loudness != majority
I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
rules to assault the few, IMHO.
On 5/1/09, James R. Cutler wrote:
> On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations
>> rather
>> than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?
>> --
>> Gadi Evron,
>> g...@linuxbox.org.
>
>
> Thanks, Gadi.
>
> Some on this list appear to believe that the NANOG list is only for
> router operations and only for large networks. Cisco and Jupiter user
> forums are places for this. Together, these suggest that the NANOG
> list should disappear. THIS IS INCORRECT! ("Strongly worded message
> to follow.")
>
> "The North American Network Operators' Group! NANOG is an educational
> and operational forum for the coordination and dissemination of
> technical information related to backbone/enterprise networking
> technologies and operational practices."
>
> In my almost two decades involved in enterprise networking: Naming and
> Addressing Management, DNS Service, DHCP Service, Mail Routing both
> via MX, using directory services, and through firewall systems, and,
> mail delivery systems (post offices) were all network operations
> concerns, especially as the network evolved to meet changing
> technology and especially changing company and client needs.
>
> I do agree that some are lazy and prone to use the NANOG list as first
> resort in troubleshooting. As noted in other messages, a simple "This
> information is available at ." would be useful, but not repeated
> "This is off topic.", which to some extent itself is off topic for the
> NANOG list. Let the MLC send gentle reminders to keep us on track.
> That is a major part of the MLC responsibility. Is not mine or Bob's
> or Ted's or Alice's.
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cut...@consultant.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>
--
Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations
> rather
> than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?
> --
> Gadi Evron,
> g...@linuxbox.org.
Thanks, Gadi.
Some on this list appear to believe that the NANOG list is only for
router operations and only for large networks. Cisco and Jupiter user
forums are places for this. Together, these suggest that the NANOG
list should disappear. THIS IS INCORRECT! ("Strongly worded message
to follow.")
"The North American Network Operators' Group! NANOG is an educational
and operational forum for the coordination and dissemination of
technical information related to backbone/enterprise networking
technologies and operational practices."
In my almost two decades involved in enterprise networking: Naming and
Addressing Management, DNS Service, DHCP Service, Mail Routing both
via MX, using directory services, and through firewall systems, and,
mail delivery systems (post offices) were all network operations
concerns, especially as the network evolved to meet changing
technology and especially changing company and client needs.
I do agree that some are lazy and prone to use the NANOG list as first
resort in troubleshooting. As noted in other messages, a simple "This
information is available at ." would be useful, but not repeated
"This is off topic.", which to some extent itself is off topic for the
NANOG list. Let the MLC send gentle reminders to keep us on track.
That is a major part of the MLC responsibility. Is not mine or Bob's
or Ted's or Alice's.
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to all >> queries, on topic. > > > On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. > > It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam prevention, > or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to routing. It caused a widespread outage in a distributed internet service in somewhat unanticapated fashion. DNSBL's and similar resource mapping facilities are not solely a spam tool (consider the other applications for the ip to asn for example), how they break should be of interest to us for much the same reason that cache poisoning is. as I noted much of the ensuing dicussion was far off topic. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: >> "Is it down for just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the >> poster. > > > This is going to sound harsh, but it seems true to me. > > "If you don't know how to determine if a problem only affects a single > site, you aren't competent to be part of Nanog community and should > unsubscribe." > > I mean seriously, pick up your cell phone and try reaching it from > there. How many network operations don't have network enabled cell > phones these days? And likewise, if you don't have more than a single > provider, is Nanog an appropriate place for you? > > So yeah, it sounds harsh. But let's be honest -- it's true. Every > single idiot that posts "the internet is down!" is usually working > from their home DSL and can't find their way out of a wet paper bag. While I sympathize and tend to agree, I'd like to raise a point for consideration. Many operators are idle on NANOG in order to learn. NANOG in fact is one of the educational facilities for beginner network operators. It should be expected if indeed NANOG is to fill this role, that occasionally a "silly" question will be asked. -- Gadi Evron, g...@linuxbox.org. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/ Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to >> all >> queries, on topic. > > > On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. > > It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam > prevention, or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to > routing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations rather than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest? -- Gadi Evron, g...@linuxbox.org. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/ Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/ ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Apr 30, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Simon Lyall wrote: > Policy re individual sites > == > > The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as > websites > and email services is off-topic unless: Yes. > (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which > directly supports network routing and connectivity. Yes. > (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than > problems > at the site hosting the service. (a) The problems are related to a widespread outage which affects more than one site. Which actually kind of rules it out, since that conflicts with the original statement above. So drop (a) and keep (b). A minor rewording of that would be: "The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites and email services is off-topic unless the site provides a route-server or similar service which directly supports network routing and connectivity." -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > There are lists for a ton of other nanog topics as well. And? People should subscribe to them. Nanog's function as a "list for all things" makes it entirely useless. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > "Is it down for just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the > poster. This is going to sound harsh, but it seems true to me. "If you don't know how to determine if a problem only affects a single site, you aren't competent to be part of Nanog community and should unsubscribe." I mean seriously, pick up your cell phone and try reaching it from there. How many network operations don't have network enabled cell phones these days? And likewise, if you don't have more than a single provider, is Nanog an appropriate place for you? So yeah, it sounds harsh. But let's be honest -- it's true. Every single idiot that posts "the internet is down!" is usually working from their home DSL and can't find their way out of a wet paper bag. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to > all > queries, on topic. On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam prevention, or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to routing. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
> Policy re individual sites > == > > 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. Why so short? You really need to write up several more pages of detailed regulations so that we can get everyone to memorise it and set up an online NANOG on-topic quiz that people have to pass every 6 months to maintain posting privileges. Or, maybe you could just stop worrying about POLICING and pipe up more often with actual useful info that would help the people who start/join these discussions. Stuff like the URL to outages.org, for instance. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. --Michael Dillon ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
> A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from > lurkers) ? > > Simon > NANOG MLC > > Policy re individual sites > == > > 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. fix your desk calendar. this is may 1st, not april 1st. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
