On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 02:29, Jo Rhett 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-futur
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 21:54, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009, Lucy Lynch wrote:
>
>> You're missing my point. It may be time publiclly admit that the NANOG
>> list is a place to discuss operational issues but not a place for
>> real-time discussion of operational incidents.
>>
>> I ha
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 18:45, Simon Lyall 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 Inte
Would everyone prefer to hear from well-heeled slick Vendor sales
engineers instead? Doctors are some of the most boring people on
earth, but if you listen closely you will surely learn something from
them. Likewise engineers aren't the most presentable people on earth,
but if you listen closely
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Alfred Farrington II (via Multiply)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Check out my Multiply site
Thanks Alfred, also thanks for the private request too.
You're best defense on this is going to be a) claim stupidity, b)
claim someone got your password and took over you
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:35 PM, someone wrote:
> Add me to the list of never-saw-that. In addition, I just checked the
> nanog archives, and there isn't an announcement of that type in the
> archives.
Below is the full email, with headers, from Monday. Hopefully it will
put this issue to rest...
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
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I think that all posting access to the list should be
> removed. Yes, nobody should be able to post messages to the list.
> Instead, posting would be via a blog website, and the blog messages
> would then be echoed into var
Someone wrote:
> To resolve the issue of accuracy...
How about, in order to progress, everybody (EVERYBODY!!) ignore
how we got here and focus on the future. These NANOG bickering
sessions are making some here look like their own children.
-Jim P.
__
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
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
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The subject line I see in my MUA is
>
> "re: [nanog-futures] Subject line Ta"
>
> for the nanog list, it is:
>
> "Re: [NANOG] Microsoft.com PMTUD bla"
Some advice, once given to me by a NANOGer, is:
"just use .proc
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:17 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > I realize that the MLC doesn't issue a lot of warnings, but that
> > is partly because they don't want to feel like policemen. Perhaps
> > they w
(Here is the complete email)
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:30 -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We should be advertising the changes to the list and vet what few core
> options need to be vetted.
My recommendations:
Under: Admin -> Content Filtering
* filter_content = Yes
* filter_mime_type
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:30 -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We should be advertising the changes to the list and vet what few core
> options need to be vetted.
My recommendations:
Under: Admin -> Content Filtering
* filter_content = Yes
* filter_mime_types = application/ms-tnef
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?
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:16 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:11:33PM -0500, Alfred Farrington II wrote:
> > keep politics/culture/society out of it. Maintain as *internet
> > operations* list. There's enough of this in the world already.
>
> I suspect that's a bit too
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 05:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The NANOG list could ensure that the From, To and Cc lines never have
> any addresses in them other than the one instance of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's why that (sadly) won't work: Too many MUAs support automatically
storing From: in the
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 11:10 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I'm seeing these too. The community determined that unless it goes to
> the entire list, a posting to the list, that it is a matter between
> the poster and the sender.
>
> If you need some help configuring your mailer to drop a
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 <[EM
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:47 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :)
On some Vendor independent lists that I run we have this requirement:
Members must do at least one of the following:
-Subscribe/post with your work email address
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 03:02 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> Before everyone goes all happy and tell me I'm nuts for even suggesting
> this, I'd like to say...
>
> The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the posters
> and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:39 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> b. Vote process detailed: upon discussion, MLC chair SHALL call a vote.
> Each MLC member MUST cast vote as follows: "no action"/"suspend"/"ban".
> Vote for "ban" counts also as vote for "suspend". If there is a simple
> majority voting
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 22:56 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm referring to bloggish-type posts. I'm [and probably many others on
> nanog-l] are glad you stopped. Sorry to lump you together with Gadi!
Frankly, from the sidelines, Fergie and Gadi both pale in comparison to
the often brunt and b
24 matches
Mail list logo
