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.
Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve pushing packets from A to B. And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that operational mail / spam filtering issues are perfectly on topic. New list not particularly necessary I think .. but sure, a spam or mailops bof at nanog would be a good idea. I (or well, APCAUCE) have been running a spam conference track at APRICOT for the past few years now .. srs On Oct 30, 2007 11:02 PM, Al Iverson <aiversonlists@spamresource.com> wrote:
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.
Well, the current nanog MLC is mostly because Susan Harris was cracking down equally on discussions of anything mail / spam filtering related (operational not kooky) .. in fact, on anything that didnt involve pushing packets from A to B.
And we have Marty Hannigan from the MLC telling us that operational mail / spam filtering issues are perfectly on topic. New list not particularly necessary I think .. but sure, a spam or mailops bof at nanog would be a good idea. I (or well, APCAUCE) have been running a spam conference track at APRICOT for the past few years now .. This has veered from operational discussion into the realm of
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: meta-discussion about the list, so let's move it to nanog-futures. Reply-to has been set accordingly in this email, please respect it. MLC's position is that anything that is acceptable for the conference is acceptable on the list. Mail operations are on-topic, although tangentially. Spam filtering is definitely off-topic. -alex [mlc chair]
On 10/31/07, Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
[ snip ]
MLC's position is that anything that is acceptable for the conference is acceptable on the list. Mail operations are on-topic, although tangentially. Spam filtering is definitely off-topic.
Perhaps personal filtering is not, but spam appliances or home grown filtering, methods, code, or techniques for the purpose of despamming customer in/out mail is mail operations are, for all intents and purposes, on topic. I've demonstrated this myself in a few topics related to spam ddos and surrounding tools and techniques. The only thing I'd ask is that people don't branch off threads. It messes up our killfiles. :-) Martin Hannigan NANOG MLC Member
participants (4)
-
Al Iverson -
Alex Pilosov -
Martin Hannigan -
Suresh Ramasubramanian