It doesn't matter who wrote:
If you don't find network operations to be relevant, then by all
means STOP POSTING TO THE GOD DAMNED NETWORK OPERATIONS MAILING LIST.
Some of those, particularly those who *gasp* run networks, still find
it relevent. If there is this much disagreement about your p
I hadn't checked this list for a week or so, and today was met with this
deluge of posts regarding topicality [again], in response, might I offer a
couple of stray thoughts?
The debate and subsequent infighting has become far more disruptive now,
then the occasional offtopic post. It is a simp
John Underhill wrote:
[snip]
> There is the issue of sustaining readership. If window of acceptable
> subject matter is too narrow, appeal will decline, and with it some of
> the readership that we need to remain active will leave the list, hence
> we need some [reasonable] measure of flexibility
Hi, the following post is a forward of an email by Fergie to funsec. This
story by itself is not relevant to NANOG, but it does illustrate a problem
nearly all of us have been facing. Mass exploitation of servers in our
nets, colos and hosting farms.
Nearly ever (relevant, not say, just a transit
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, John Underhill wrote:
> -Moderated Approach
> Create an nanogofftopic@ to give a vent to members. If a post is clearly
> offtopic and not announced as such, use a 'three strikes your out' approach,
> first warning and inviting review of list guidelines, then as a last measur
