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
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
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
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.
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
-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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
