Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
3. Cross posting is prohibited. Just wondering on this one. It would appear to mainly hit things like the CIDR reports[1] , conference CFPs and news about new networks being allocated to the APNIC etc. Stopping these doesn't seem a priority. Or does it mean something else? [1] - These appear to be crossposted, but it's hard to tell since they are Bcc'd. -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
Martin Hannigan wrote: 3. Cross posting is prohibited. I think this needs more clarification, like Cross posting to other lists is prohibited, CCing individuals are permitted. I see no technical difference between cross posting to another list or just a list if individuals. 8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster are prohibited. I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to prohibit autoresponses that result in a direct email to someone on the list. Without this language, you will have a lot of people continuing to whine about getting an autoresponse when they CC everyone in the thread and one of them is on vacation. -Sean (Please respond only to the list)
Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
Alex Pilosov wrote: 8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster are prohibited. I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to prohibit autoresponses that result in a direct email to someone on the list. Without this language, you will have a lot of people continuing to whine about getting an autoresponse when they CC everyone in the thread and one of them is on vacation. Since this is the lists' AUP, whatever consenting adults do to their private email that has no bearing to the list is clearly OK. I already know of one case that someone that CCed nanog@ and the original poster complained when they got an autoresponder. The proposed language is vague enough that it does not make it clear if it applies only to messages send through the list, or a message to any individual that includes the list. If you all want to live in a vague world, then that's fine by me, but don't complain when you get complaints that arise out of the vagueness. -Sean (Please respond only to the list)
Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Sean Figgins wrote: I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to prohibit autoresponses that result in a direct email to someone on the list. Without this language, you will have a lot of people continuing to whine about getting an autoresponse when they CC everyone in the thread and one of them is on vacation. Since this is the lists' AUP, whatever consenting adults do to their private email that has no bearing to the list is clearly OK. I already know of one case that someone that CCed nanog@ and the original poster complained when they got an autoresponder. The proposed language is vague enough that it does not make it clear if it applies only to messages send through the list, or a message to any individual that includes the list. If you all want to live in a vague world, then that's fine by me, but don't complain when you get complaints that arise out of the vagueness. Well, that's why MLC is paid big bucks to separate loony complaints from real ones ;) -alex
Re: mail operators list
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 operations as a bounded experiment seems like a reasonable thing to do. I don't see any reason not to try this. The NANOG list is currently a mess. Sometimes it's arguably an off-topic mess. Other times, it's just too many people saying the same things over and over, such that if anybody said anything new and interesting they'd get lost in the noise. If it had any value as the one true list, I think that's long gone. 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 -- they can just join them all. If the latter, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. I don't know if dividing the list into specialty lists would fix the current problems. I suspect the real issue is that there's a size of mailing list beyond which allowing unmoderated posting just doesn't work anymore, and we've hit it. But I think if i could subscribe to some lists with more in depth discussions of my specialties, and could let the drivel and discussions of areas of network operations that I don't work on happen elsewhere, I'd be much happier than I am with the current state. -Steve
