Proposed list charter/AUP change?
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
Susan keeps on claiming spam is offtopic for Nanog, yet the AUP/Charter/FAQ don't mention spam other than telling us not to ask "I'm being spammed, how can I make it stop?"
If it's flat-out offtopic, no matter what, or if the majority of list members don't want to talk about it on the list, why hasn't the FAQ been updated? Or does Merit just want us to try to guess what is offtopic?
Spam represents a significant percentage of email traffic, and its delivery is increasingly via trojaned dsl/broadband devices. Even spam delivered from quasi-legitimate sources is usually an abuse of resources that some NSP/ISP is paying for. Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category. Examples would include: Working enterprise-scale spam filtering (Hourly mail volume measured in thousands) Discussion of edge/core SMTP filtering to curtail spam sources. Policy discussions for handling domestic and international spam sources. Implementation, or requests for implementation, of SPF and similiar controls. Inter-network cooperation for handling large scale issues. I think this last is pretty much exactly what a list like this is for, be it spam, regional power outages, BGP shenanigans, or widespread squirrel detonations. - billn
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote:
Spam represents a significant percentage of email traffic, and its delivery is increasingly via trojaned dsl/broadband devices. Even spam delivered from quasi-legitimate sources is usually an abuse of resources that some NSP/ISP is paying for. Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category.
I don't think spam is considered off-topic because anyone thinks it's irrelevant, but because it's such a vast category by itself that it could easily swallow the list whole. There are already many lists just dealing with spam and/or individual subtopics of it. I think it's a matter of trying to find a decent balance between the convenience of rounding up all the relevant topics into one list and the flexibility of allowing people to opt into the topics they want by choosing various lists. Having said that, I think that individual spam-related operational disruptions, mailbombings which have a significant[*] impact, etc are appropriate, so long as they don't develop into entire discussions on the topic of spam as a whole (which would fit better on another list IMHO). -c [*] - Now we can have a sidebar discussion on what constitutes a significant impact...
Bill Nash wrote:
Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category.
Examples would include: Working enterprise-scale spam filtering (Hourly mail volume measured in thousands) Discussion of edge/core SMTP filtering to curtail spam sources. Policy discussions for handling domestic and international spam sources. Implementation, or requests for implementation, of SPF and similiar controls. Inter-network cooperation for handling large scale issues.
I think this last is pretty much exactly what a list like this is for, be it spam, regional power outages, BGP shenanigans, or widespread squirrel detonations.
There are 2 problems with this. 1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the large number of people who have in-depth knowledge and regularly contribute on those topics. 2) It is very hard to start talking about "spam" and limit the breadth of the replies to those that are on-topic for a network-operations focused list. Spam makes people angry, and angry people want to rant about how much they hate spammers and the various things "we" or "they" should do to solve the problem at the source. Angry people don't usually pay adequate attention to list policies so they blow over the policy line, time and time again. For that reason, I believe that spam-related topics should be discussed on spam-l first, and then the topic should be raised on this list only if you can't find the info or contacts you need on the spam-specific list first. I think the NANOG FAQ should elaborate on this distinction. jc
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:36:03AM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the large number of people who have in-depth knowledge and regularly contribute on those topics.
But there's a lack of operational expertise there. Lots of people fascinated by email headers and so on, but far fewer with experience deploying large systems or handling security related issues.
2) It is very hard to start talking about "spam" and limit the breadth of the replies to those that are on-topic for a network-operations focused list. Spam makes people angry, and angry people want to rant about how much they hate spammers and the various things "we" or "they" should do to solve the problem at the source. Angry people don't usually pay adequate attention to list policies so they blow over the policy line, time and time again.
That sounds like the problem is people who can't treat a mailing list professionally and maintain enough personal restraint to keep the S/N above water rather than an issue with one partcular subject of conversation.
For that reason, I believe that spam-related topics should be discussed on spam-l first, and then the topic should be raised on this list only if you can't find the info or contacts you need on the spam-specific list first.
For people who want to bemoan spam and and hunt spammers, sure. For people looking for answers to operational problems that just happen to have some relationship to bulk email... I'm less convinced. Cheers, Steve
JC Dill wrote:
For that reason, I believe that spam-related topics should be discussed on spam-l first, and then the topic should be raised on this list only if you can't find the info or contacts you need on the spam-specific list first.
I think the NANOG FAQ should elaborate on this distinction.
From a KISS perspective, what denotes spam is, imho, off-topic for this list. How to handle spam or the impact of spam is operational and is relevant to this list regardless as to whether it's on spam-l or not.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:36:03 -0800, JC Dill <lists05@equinephotoart.com> wrote:
There are 2 problems with this.
1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
One focus of thsi meeting must be that it should not degenerate into a "let's all bash on the current moderator" argument - that will, ultimately, not be very productive. The issue on nanog is not spam discussions - it is an apparently widely held perception among list members that the current moderation of the list in an attempt to maintain signal to noise ratios is heavy handed. I've seen other lists where their admins have tried this approach - it has, so far, not worked at all on any of the lists that it has been tried on .. and to add to the fun, it tends to generate "uncivil disobedience". Like for example Randy Bush getting his posting rights revoked for cross posting an email about an anycast experiment to nanog and various other operator lists, with the To: header reading, in part - "ops sheep willing to be censored by a non op" <nanog@nanog.org> Some would, rightly, say that Randy was wearing a giant "kick me" sign when he posted that - but it has to be pointed out that this sort of reaction is inevitable on mailing lists where the list admin exercises his/her moderation powers beyond a certain extent in an effort to enforce SNR on the list. As spam-l keeps getting cited in this thread, please allow me to point out that spam-l has a set of topics that posters have to prefix to their posts, so that they can be categorized, and either read or not read by list subscribers, who moreover get to decide just what list topics they want to sign up to. Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc. These are all ideas, though - what is needed urgently is for this special meeting not to end up as a repetition of "the moderator is heavy handed", "list members always wander off topic, and we have to head them off somehow", and instead to develop on more productive lines. --srs ps - finally, someone may want to suggest a slight change to point #4 in this slide, linked from the nanog AUP, to take into account current list (non) membership: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/labovit/sld013.htm
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:57:50 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc.
And at least some mailing list software (LSoft's Listserv product) even allows subscribers to say "I only want mail for OP-SEC and OP-PEERING", and they'll literally never see the others. The SPAM-L list uses it heavily, with a fairly extensive set of topics defined - MEDIA for threads relating to spam-in-the-news, BLOCK for discussions of whether a given site deserves being plonked in a block list, and of course HELP, MISC, and HUMOR (the latter usually including sightings of egregeously incompetent spammers). (Quite possibly other list manager packages do similar things, but I'm not familiar enough with the admin side of anything besides LSoft's stuff to comment)...
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Nash Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:51 AM To: Steve Sobol Cc: Susan Harris; nanog@merit.edu; Betty Burke Subject: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
Susan keeps on claiming spam is offtopic for Nanog, yet
I second this request. the
AUP/Charter/FAQ
don't mention spam other than telling us not to ask "I'm
being spammed, how
can I make it stop?"
If it's flat-out offtopic, no matter what, or if the majority of list members don't want to talk about it on the list, why hasn't the FAQ been updated? Or does Merit just want us to try to guess what is offtopic?
Spam represents a significant percentage of email traffic, and its delivery is increasingly via trojaned dsl/broadband devices. Even spam delivered from quasi-legitimate sources is usually an abuse of resources that some NSP/ISP is paying for. Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category.
Examples would include: Working enterprise-scale spam filtering (Hourly mail volume measured in thousands) Discussion of edge/core SMTP filtering to curtail spam sources. Policy discussions for handling domestic and international
spam sources. Implementation, or requests for implementation, of SPF and similiar controls. Inter-network cooperation for handling large scale issues.
I think this last is pretty much exactly what a list like this is for, be it spam, regional power outages, BGP shenanigans, or widespread squirrel detonations.
- billn
participants (8)
-
Bill Nash -
Clay Fiske -
Ejay Hire -
Jan Bacher -
JC Dill -
Steve Atkins -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu