The following was recently asserted by someone on nanog-futures:

Looking at the last two... posts, one of which went unchallenged for 4 days while the other was immediately followed by an email from me pointing out that the post was off-topic and asking him to stop; an immediate challenge appears to reduce the number of posts on that topic. The $TOPIC1 incident started $DATE and continued for 6 days and 60 posts. The $TOPIC2 thread appears to have died out after 43 messages, including the messages that discussed its off-topic-ness (and including the messages crossposted from nanog-futures).

The individuals involved are not germane and so have been redacted. Anyway, just for the record, the majority of the threads that grow like weeds have an "appropriateness to nanog@" component to them and thus belong on nanog-futures. Everyone: YOU have the power to help make the determination that certain threads properly belong on nanog-futures and not nanog@. If you really feel the need to reply to such threads, won't you please consider setting reply-to to nanog-futures@{nanog.org, merit.edu} and CCing same (I believe that as a nanog@ subscriber you are OK to post even if you are not a subscriber; if I'm wrong please let me know and we'll fix that)? The MLC really hates quashing threads; some good old fashioned grass roots efforts to move threads to where they belong would be most welcome. By the way, if YOU care about the future direction of the community, why not subscribe to nanog-futures@nanog.org? The list is fairly low traffic compared to nanog@ (though we can expect some meta-discussions over there). Thank you, ---Rob (on behalf of nanog-admin, the nanog@nanog.org list administration team)