On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 03:35:29PM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
> For the general conference, I agree that it does not always need to have
> transcripts. But as the community meeting is likely the place where
> corporate business is being discussed, this needs to be reviewable at a
> later date
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:02:24AM -0700, Shrdlu wrote:
> I've been following along on this, with quite some interest. I'd
> actually be happy to pay to be a member, and be able to retain my
> natural state as a recluse.
As yet another recluse, I'd like to suggest an alternate line of thinking.
I have no dog in this fight, as I don't participate in NANOG other
than to comment on the mailing list occasionally, and to occasionally
try to render or request help (usually offlist).
But I'll comment that from my outsider's view back here in the
cheap seats, what has happened is indistinguishab
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:22:16AM -0800, Shrdlu wrote:
> Top posting only because there's no point in making anyone who's already
> seen it look at again. Can we please remind people in a friendly way
> that a disclaimer of this length doesn't belong on a mailing list?
I concur, but will add "
Your points are excellent, and this one bears emphasis:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:15:46PM +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> As a complete ecosystem, it's possible to make the MTA do some of the
> rejections before ever reaching mailman.
On the sites where I'm running Mailman, the overwhelming majori
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:40:47AM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Which begs the question as to whether it was truly forged, or whether
> the subscriber followed the link to "Give us your email account password
> so we can spam your entire address book" which is default (mis)behavior
> on such sit
The NANOG list got hit this morning by spam from facebook, using
the forged address of a subscriber. Any number of "social networks"
are using this tactic -- grabbing the address books of members and
then spamming every address in them on behalf of their latest victmember.
They know that this
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:02:58PM -0500, Tim Yocum wrote:
> I mailed nanog-support@ earlier today with a suggestion to add a link
> to the outages list over on the NANOG site where we direct folks to
> other lists for off-topics. Outages are not best tracked on NANOG and
> haven't been for a very
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:50:18PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Another list, run by long-time participants in spam-l, is being started.
> I'll pass along details as soon as I'm certain I have them straight.
Subscribe via:
spam-l-requ...@spam-l.com
It's run by Mail
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 01:41:13PM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
> A few people have pointed out that the spam-l list is being shutdown [1]
>
> Could anybody recommend an alternative "open"[2] anti-spam orientated list
> that people can be pointed to?
Another list, run by long-time participants in s
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:37:38PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> If "I" had posted about equifax.com being down this would not be a
> topic. If Rod Beck did it, he'd get banned. You can't moderate style
> or personality tweaks for us. That's what killfiles are for. .
>
> Two posts about website
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:43:22PM -0700, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> But I have to say (again, apologies) that security issues on the Internet
> - -- and especially the lack of engagement from ISPs -- is a major, major
> problem that NANOG could be a major facilitator, instead of turning its
> back on
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 02:55:31PM -0800, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Would it make sense to have a nanog-test list so that people can test for
> connectivity issues to the list instead of posting "is this thing on?" to
> na...@. Seems to work pretty well for FreeBSD.
Not necessary. All
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 06:10:55PM -0400, Christian Koch wrote:
> With actual operational content decreasing, and people using the list
> as a paging system
> for email admins and NOC contacts more frequently, why has the AUP not
> been updated to reflect what seems to be a
> "frowned upon" use of
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Brian Raaen wrote:
> Agreed... Mailman has a feature for emergency moderation of all post, created
> just for flame wars like this.
I rate this one a 2 on a 10 scale of toastiness.
But I think I probably have a much higher threshold for discussions like
This message was injected from:
Received: from 82-135-203-209.static.zebra.lt ([82.135.203.209]
helo=ARGPLU02)
It could have been rejected if the MTA on the NANOG side was configured
to reject bad HELO; anything that's not a FQDN or a bracketed-quad IP
address indicates either (a) spam
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 02:47:36PM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> But, I don't think any reasonable amount of enforcement is going to solve
> what I perceive as the biggest cause of the current low signal to noise
> ratio on the mailing list. At ~10,000 people with posting access, the
> list is
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:15:50AM -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> By now it's no news to anyone on -futures or the main list that the SC
> unanimously decided to dissolve the current Mailing List Committee (to
> be blunt, fire all existing MLC members) and start anew.
There's a mailing list *committ
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 05:18:04AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> Most of the ohter mailing lists I'm on have such a tag [...]
That's because they haven't figured out
(per http://www.l33tskillz.org/writing/tagging-harmful/):
- it violates the principle of minimal munging
- tagging
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 05:31:49AM -0700, Gregory Hicks wrote:
> > I think a better way to do this is to cause the archives to expose
> > the relevant headers. This would provide the same URL and would
> > help train people to look in the headers for List-Id, List-Archive, etc.
>
> This is mail u
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 08:44:25AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This list is archived on several websites. It is useful to have
> the URL to the subscribe info on the last line of every message.
I think a better way to do this is to cause the archives to expose
the relevant headers. This wou
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 07:20:17AM -0700, Lynda wrote:
> It is something that mailman offers, but there was certainly no need to
> use it. I manage mailing lists that do, and ones that don't. Personally,
> I'm in favor of *not* doing it.
I strongly concur. Subject-line tagging is a poor practic
Original Message Follows ---
>
> Received: from taos.firemountain.net ([207.114.3.54])
> Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.169.dsl.charm.net
> [207.114.17.169])
> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11])
> Received: from avatar.gsp.org (local
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:49:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Our Internet"!?
Yeah, "our". I have this antique idea that we are a community, mutually
responsible and obligated to each other. I view the totality of what
we've built as a collective project. And I get, errrm, testy, when
I
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:19:38PM -0600, Sean Figgins wrote:
> Old news.
I elected not to post it to NANOG, but unless I'm mistaken, it's
actually new news: we knew that NetSol has been stealing domains,
but stealing subdomains isn't something I'd seen before. Of course,
given how pervasively ev
I'm on the fence about this one, so I thought I would make my
Friday afternoon interesting by asking to be repeatedly pummelled...
I mean, asking for opinions of other folks on the list. Whatcha think?
---Rsk
---
Subj: Network Solutions hijacking sub-domains
[ It
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:59:27AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
> Think "definition of scope" as the boundary, not "rate of perceived
> off-topic messages" as the boundary - we've had messages that were far
> better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources.
Oh, I agree tha
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 06:55:33AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
> Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly
> prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world?
>
> All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion
> about, is boundaries.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:20:08PM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
> Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything
> he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not.
> Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand
> that t
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 03:51:04PM +1300, Simon Lyall wrote:
> In that case people filtering by using the "To: " header so the emails
> would not be correctly filtered.
I don't filter on "To:" or "Subject:" for nanog; I use:
^Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in procmail. So let me take this op
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:14:05PM -0800, Lynda wrote:
> Yeah, no surprise from me. Personally, I don't much care for blacklists.
> I find them a bit heavy handed, and I think they aren't effective.
Well...if I may, let me mumble about a few things. ('Cause it beats
going for a run in the sleet
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:30:23AM -0800, Lynda wrote:
> I'm hoping that this just gets through. For two or three years, I've
> been relaying all deaddrop.org email through pair.com, which has
> apparently made it onto mail-abuse's blacklists.
1. I'm surprised; pair.com has had a pretty good re
32 matches
Mail list logo
