Bill Nash wrote:
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator
involvement. Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical
candidates are an element of it. Seeing post after post from people who
feel they've been unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing
on
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Bill Nash wrote:
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement.
Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an
element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been
unfairly sanctioned,
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 10:56 -0800, Bill Nash wrote:
But.
It's a band-aid, in the short term, and won't do much to
'unalienate' (disalienate?) those who have departed, by choice or
otherwise, because of moderator actions.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the best advice for NANOG is *less*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Popovitch) writes:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the best advice for NANOG is *less* moderation,
more acceptance of diverse opinions, and even greater self-control.
there's an ideal range of overall volume and debris quotient for any
given population. clamp it too low and you
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
To me, it's not a productive effort to micro-manage(or MERIT)
the list via the FAQ. The FAQ is a traditional and
historically acceptable method of answering questions that are
bound to come up repeatedly as a primary result of new participants
from any source.
The changes that people are discussing have little to do with
what is and what isn't on topic for the NANOG mailing list.
What it does have lots to do with is cooperating on examination
of the moderation and testing the current long-standing techniques
to determine if they need to be re-vamped
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Hi Bill, to be fair, there are specific forum for discussion of spam
tackling measures and people have been pointed in that direction on
numerous occasions, however in its generic sense it might still be on
topic for nanog.
I note the original post
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote:
Spam represents a significant percentage of email traffic, and its
delivery is increasingly via trojaned dsl/broadband devices. Even spam
delivered from quasi-legitimate sources is usually an abuse of resources
that some NSP/ISP is
Bill Nash wrote:
Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is
absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say
'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this
category.
Examples would include:
Working enterprise-scale spam
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:36:03AM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed
regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
large number of people who have in-depth knowledge and regularly
contribute on those topics.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:36:03 -0800, JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are 2 problems with this.
1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed
regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
One focus of thsi meeting must be that it should not
Before I write anything else, I wanted to say how much I enjoy reading
NANOG and how much I appreciate all the things you have taught me in the
past year I have been on the list. I realized today after the third
person asked how I knew something obscure and technical that so much has
rubbed off
: On the same hand, none of us respond well to being told that we're
: straying and need to drop the issue. Let's face it, most people posting
Never say never, none or everyone. Some folks do respond ok when told to
get back on topic, apologize for their off topicness (publically or not)
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:57:50 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational
security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to
discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc.
And at least some mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo
