Re: [Nanog-futures] spam-l list
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:29, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote: That's funny, given that Mailman is the source of significant amounts of backscatter. Mailman is neither an MTA nor a MUA. Something before or after Mailman is backscattering. -Jim P. ___ 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 Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 18:45, Simon Lyall si...@darkmere.gen.nz wrote: 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. It's really just easier to say that NANOG is only for old-timers, BGP, and long boring discussions of interest only to IETF policy makers and IETF wanna-bes. IMHO, Engineering belongs on IETF lists, Operational issues on NANOG, and everything else should expire within 24 hours. Is it down for just me *can* be Operational, depending on the poster. -Jim P. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] MLC post-mortem]
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you are not that familiar with the world of Open Source, Perhaps I am, perhaps you could have google'd my name. ;-) Perhaps I run other mailinglists, perhaps I know Mailman intimately, as well as blogging software. Perhaps I also know what GSOC projects are really truly capable of producing, let alone NANOG theorists. BUT... with all those possibilities... I stand by my earlier statement that NANOG MLC shouldn't proceed down an uncertain development path. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Subject line Tag and footer
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Sean Figgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Popovitch wrote: Some advice, once given to me by a NANOGer, is: just use .procmailrc to change your headers as you see fit Not everyone that reads NANOG runs their own mail servers, or have access to procmail. Personally, I HATE procmail. It's almost as bad as manually writing the rules in sendmail. I have the option to use, or not to use procmail, as I run my own server, and that of my company, but I still prefer that NANOG mailing list puts the tag in the header. LOL! I'm too lazy (tired?) to search the archives... but I would bet that my response back then was near similar to your response today. Please understand I only recommended procmail as a tongue-in-cheek work around. I wish that everyone would just adjust themselves to change rather than me stuck in the past with excuses like it wastes space, or it violates XXX principle. Those arguments always sound like a bunch of rules lawyers that don't actually care about the content of the list as much as the proving themselves right, and thus better than everyone else. :-) Generally I Agree. One counter-point: as the intertubes are focusing on smaller and smaller devices, Subject line realestate is becoming a valid concern. -Jim P. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] reply-to
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To echo an earlier comment, how much development work would be involved in allowing list members to individually specify whether they want: Tags in the subject line, Additional message footers, Reply-to headers Not as much as you might think Mailman supports nested-lists (Umbrella lists). The solution could be to create nanog-robust@ and change nanog@ to have lite functionality (headers, subject line, reply-to, etc.) Then you would subscribe nanog-robust@ to nanog@, and set the reply-to for nanog-robust@ to nanog@ Folks could then subscribe to nanog@ or nanog-robust@ and In the end everybody wins... except the guys/gals who have to maintain it. ;-) -Jim P. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:56 -0600, J Bacher wrote: Absent an inability to have a private conversation as an admin, what do you (all) suggest? An admin email to the list directed to that individual? Do nothing, apply the three strikes you're out when applicable without any notification? How about From: J Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Merit, or whoever, should be able to securely setup those capabilities. -Jim P. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AUP modification - full first and last names
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:15 -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:- Members must do at least one of the following: -Subscribe/post with your work email address -Use your proper name in your email address (i.e. Bob Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Identify yourself in your email sig -Inform the list admins of your correct identity - : -Subscribe/post with your work email address No, not acceptable. Some companies don't want you to use their email service for things like the NANOG list. : -Identify yourself in your email sig No, some folks don't do sigs. OK, that still leaves 2 other options for the membership. No one plan fits everyone... every NANOG'er should know that. Flexibility (in the requirements as well as by the members) is the key. -Jim P.
