On 10/30/07, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <chucklist@forest.net> wrote:
On a more relevant and operational sort of note, it sure would be nice if there were a NAMOG (North American Mail Operators Group) or the like to resolve these sorts of issues. Feel free to clue-by- four me if I've missed it. MAAWG come pretty close: http://www.maawg.org/home Smaller/regional ISPs need not apply. Minimum cost of entry is $3,000/year, no voting rights ($12.5K if you actually care about voting). So if you're not Verizon or Comcast or similarly sized, it appears you're not really welcome. Though it might make sense to discuss some other things NANOG could do in addition to worrying about routing table size and churn in
At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote: the core, those are all discussions for the Futures list.
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 have a sinking fear it'll be overrun with loud people who aren't actually responsible for anything more than a single IP at most, like SPAM-L, but I suppose it's worth a shot. Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.