Re: i am not a list moderator, but i do have a request
For what it's worth, there _is_ a botnet discussison list: General information about the mailing list is at: http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/botnets - ferg -- Thomas Kuehling <thomas.kuehling@packetloss.biz> wrote: Dear all, On So, 2006-08-13 at 15:17 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
Interestingly enough, I lurk here 99.999% of the time. I comment on this thread and folks ask to move it to a non-SP mailing list? Perhaps non-operational, but this certainly has direct implications on SPs and I'm of the opinion it's quite relevant - well, certainly as relevant as the past recent threads:
i waited to view, where this discussion will go, but that's exactly the point. In my opinion, it's really interesting and necessary to be informed about topics like botnets. It would be a failure, when this topics won't be discussed anylonger on this list. Also it isn't that a big problem, to filter topics for himself for relevance or of no relevance. Just my two cents. Regards Thomas Kuehling -- Thomas Kuehling - TK2325-RIPE Hoehestrasse 28 - 61348 Bad Homburg vor der Höhe - Hessen Jahnstrasse 6 - 26219 Boesel - Niedersachsen -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Dear Fergie, On So, 2006-08-13 at 21:49 +0000, Fergie wrote:
For what it's worth, there _is_ a botnet discussison list:
General information about the mailing list is at:
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefull, when urgent matters concerning botnets will still discussed on the nanog-list? Please let me disabussed to it, but it's just my opinion. Regards Thomas
- ferg
-- Thomas Kuehling <thomas.kuehling@packetloss.biz> wrote:
Dear all,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 15:17 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
Interestingly enough, I lurk here 99.999% of the time. I comment on this thread and folks ask to move it to a non-SP mailing list? Perhaps non-operational, but this certainly has direct implications on SPs and I'm of the opinion it's quite relevant - well, certainly as relevant as the past recent threads:
i waited to view, where this discussion will go, but that's exactly the point. In my opinion, it's really interesting and necessary to be informed about topics like botnets. It would be a failure, when this topics won't be discussed anylonger on this list. Also it isn't that a big problem, to filter topics for himself for relevance or of no relevance.
Just my two cents.
Regards Thomas Kuehling
-- Thomas Kuehling - TK2325-RIPE Hoehestrasse 28 - 61348 Bad Homburg vor der Höhe - Hessen Jahnstrasse 6 - 26219 Boesel - Niedersachsen
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefull, when urgent matters concerning botnets will still discussed on the nanog-list? Please let me disabussed to it, but it's just my opinion.
almost everything that happens in the world is urgent to somebody somewhere. not everything that happens on the internet is urgent to everybody on nanog. there are too many topics (and too many botnets) for nanog to cover them all. -- Paul Vixie
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:42:31PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefull, when urgent matters concerning botnets will still discussed on the nanog-list? Please let me disabussed to it, but it's just my opinion.
almost everything that happens in the world is urgent to somebody somewhere. not everything that happens on the internet is urgent to everybody on nanog.
there are too many topics (and too many botnets) for nanog to cover them all. -- Paul Vixie
in other words... Lack of planning on your part will not constitute an emergency on my part si? --bill
I'm not a list moderator either, anymore. I spent enough time moderating the NANOG list to get thoroughly disgusted with those who need babysitters to supervise them in a professional forum. I'm sure the current group of volunteer moderators would appreciate some common sense and common courtesy on the part of the list members. Please, think before you post. Ask yourself some questions about the topic. Does whatever you're saying have to do directly with Internet operations, rather than with some other aspect of your professional or personal life? Is it going to be useful to the rest of the members of the list? Useful enough that a few thousand people should each at least spend 30 seconds figuring out whether it's worth reading? Is there a more appropriate forum, not because it's completely off-topic, but because the subset of NANOG subscribers who care about an issue are also subscribed elsewhere (like routes, the most specific mailing list should win, right?)? If you've decided the topic is appropriate (in other words, that it's not, say, what to tell your executives about flying through London), figure out if your message adds anything. Are you contributing anything new, or arguing for the sake of arguing? Has what you're going to say already been said? If you're contributing new analogies, are you adequately supporting them to make a broader point, or are you just throwing them out there to show off your creativity? If making a legal argument, are you backing it up with relevant case law, or merely with analogies that seem relevant to you? If you're making a business or technical argument, can you point to relevant experience, or at least sound theory, to back up whatever you're saying? Since this list is read by many of your professional peers, what impact will your posts have next time you're looking for a job. Will potential employers be impressed at your reasonableness and restraint, or scared off by your lack of self control? Please, don't make your volunteer list administrators spend their time chasing after you. They're there as a last resort, not as an immediate supervisor. -Steve On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Paul Vixie wrote:
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefull, when urgent matters concerning botnets will still discussed on the nanog-list? Please let me disabussed to it, but it's just my opinion.
almost everything that happens in the world is urgent to somebody somewhere.
not everything that happens on the internet is urgent to everybody on nanog.
there are too many topics (and too many botnets) for nanog to cover them all.
Thomas Kuehling wrote:
Dear Fergie,
On So, 2006-08-13 at 21:49 +0000, Fergie wrote:
For what it's worth, there _is_ a botnet discussison list:
General information about the mailing list is at:
thanks, didn't know about it. But isn't it still usefull, when urgent matters concerning botnets will still discussed on the nanog-list? Please let me disabussed to it, but it's just my opinion.
Urgent matters... All I see is a bunch of pontification. What is the urgency of the present botnet discussion? How is it different from last week's botnet discussion? It's the same pointless pontification rehashed week after week. I've been asking Gadi privately to stop polluting the list for a while now (to no avail). I too found it interesting at first, but after 20 iterations of the same discussion, what is the point?
participants (6)
-
Albert Meyer -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Fergie -
Paul Vixie -
Steve Gibbard -
Thomas Kuehling