ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!! sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz gone!!!1 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Tyrone Chickenbone wrote:
ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!! sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz gone!!!1
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Tyrone Chickenbone wrote:
ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!! sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz gone!!!1
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
right #nanog is 3 doors down to the left loaded with kiddies that simply don't matter to network infrastructure. Also could we please quickly kill this thread as it's utterly unimportant. - -- Andrew D Kirch | Abusive Hosts Blocking List | www.ahbl.org Security Admin | Summit Open Source Development Group | www.sosdg.org Key fingerprint = 4106 3338 1F17 1E6F 8FB2 8DFA 1331 7E25 C406 C8D2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDqaDpEzF+JcQGyNIRAtf8AJ40sxmaE01kYBPO/9a90Q0MRjULFgCgmNw5 1A7XistyQphKs2bvMRZqaFs= =3CF3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea? Andrew Kirch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
On 12/21/05, Albert Meyer <from_nanog@corenap.com> wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?
Andrew Kirch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG: /msg chanserv info #nanog
chanserv< info #nanog -ChanServ- Channel: #nanog -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago -ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago -ChanServ- Topic: North American Network Operators Group -ChanServ- Email: biodragon2002@hotmail.com -ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps -ChanServ- Mode Lock: -s
--chip -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc....
The channel is unused at this time.
-ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago
I checked with freenode staff; they confirmed that it is unused. chip wrote:
Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG:
/msg chanserv info #nanog
chanserv< info #nanog
-ChanServ- Channel: #nanog -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago -ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago -ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago -ChanServ- Topic: North American Network Operators Group -ChanServ- Email: biodragon2002@hotmail.com -ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps -ChanServ- Mode Lock: -s
--chip -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc....
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: "dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-) Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?
Who cares about organizations when it comes to exchange a few words between operators? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: "dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-)
Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited. Gadi.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them: "dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-)
Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited.
You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one I was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a reply to the list) isn't named #nanog. Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been off-list anyway. :-Z Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
from_nanog@corenap.com (Albert Meyer) writes:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. ...
there are probably several of these, but to remain useful they have to remain somewhat closed. most of you aren't old enough to remember "CB radio" but the lesson in that for me (in 1975 or so) was, if anybody can talk, everybody will. that having been said, i created <nanog@conference.jabber.tisf.net> for susan during the recent (LAX) meeting and pretty much nobody used it. one could charitably assume that it's because iChat's jabber support is pretty new and most folks are happy with AIM, but my assumption is that most folks are happy with the chatrooms they're already in, and don't need another one. what this probably means for those of us who aren't in a chatroom we find useful, is that we're just not interesting enough to get invited. anyway, <nanog@conference.jabber.tisf.net> remains, and it's lonely there. there's no password, invitations aren't required, and the server is open to new account creations if you havn't already got enough jabber accounts. i see that <funsec@conference.jabber.tisf.net> (also open, in similar ways, as is the associated mailing list) is well attended, but full of, um, jabber about all kinds of off-topic "CB radio" junk. ymmv, but isn't it inevitable? -- Paul Vixie
participants (8)
-
Albert Meyer -
Andrew Kirch -
chip -
Daniel Roesen -
Gadi Evron -
Paul Vixie -
Tyrone Chickenbone -
william(at)elan.net