On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
I find it hard to imagine that you, Randy, of all people would take
issue with a situation where people were perceived to be being
difficult just because they enjoyed it.
Alright, let me clarify a lot of things here in regards to
my posting and I
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. Unfortunately, it joins
gmail, which is my usual backup. I'm afraid to even try my old
rocketmail account.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should politics/culture/society be on-topic? Or should we maintain
this list as *internet operations* list.
What is *internet operations*?
In the telco companies that operate most of the Internet, operations
does not include network design,
On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, J. Oquendo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[ clip ]
Alright, let me clarify a lot of things here in regards to
my posting and I hope you'll take the time to read it in order
to get a glimpse of me and my posting(s).
Should we remove this person or not?
why? just because he calls you on your bs? pfui! pick on someone your
own size.
randy
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
It seems to be a cut and dried case of mail bouncing. If mail
bounces, the address is not good and should be removed.
as mail from the nanog list exploder is not being bounced, but rather
marty's personal email is being bounced, i guess you mean that marty
should stop sending it. i suspect
To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.
In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup
with this autoresponder policy.
his system bounced a private email from you. he did not send a
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.
In response to a post from the list. Same exact thing we have setup with
this autoresponder policy.
Please don't
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:11:14 -0800
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
Should we remove this person or not?
why? just because he calls you on your bs? pfui! pick on someone
Todd Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
does anyone else (aside from marty) actually think that AUP applies to
mail between list members? this just seems silly. the poster may
violate the AUP for some other reason, but having an account that
bounces email from marty's choice of smtp
-Original Message-
From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:51 AM
To: Alex Pilosov
Cc: nanog-futures@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov
On Nov 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
To clarify this discussion, I'd like to point out that the bounce in
quesiton was from a private email from Marty to J.Oquendo.
In response to a post from the list. Same exact
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Todd Underwood wrote:
the rationale for the switch is that the earlier meeting time does not
allow for people to have substantial morning meetings prior to the
conference and may cut into some evening meeting/business/socializing
activities as well. several program
On Nov 28, 2007 12:30 PM, Lynda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could I just send the email from a local server? Sure, but the ability
to filter spam for this particular domain is high on my list, and I use
pair's servers to do so, before I ever see anything. It isn't an easy
question, and I know it
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?
Joe Provo wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:56:39PM -0600, J Bacher wrote:
[snip]
Absent an inability to have a private conversation as an admin, what do you
(all) suggest?
Gosh, I had no idea all admins were using gmail. Or that the situation
was so urgent that it couldn't have been
hat type=none
I think it's an excellent idea. 9AM = bleary-eyed.
/hat
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not for the content. Randy is a little excitable since he and the SC
have been marginalized for the most part. AUP Item #8 seems to apply.
I'm asking if it's what people really want.
I'm prepared to pull the cord on the suicde belt in hopes that I can
take the current
18 matches
Mail list logo
