Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Cc: nanog@nanog.org.r-bonomi.com In-Reply-To: <1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D@twincreeks.net>
Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward From: Steve Feldman <feldman@twincreeks.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700
We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it.
Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though.
You asked for it, you got it: 1) You broke *all* the mailing-list support addresses. 'nanog-owner' ,etc. *BOUNCE* "user unknown" see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 2) You let non-members post to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 3) You broke the mailing-list *submission* address itself, for subscribers. Although you let non-member *SPAM* through. 4) You have dropped _all_ the the received lines _before_ the message gets to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 5) You are *NOT* using 'custom 'From ' lines, meaning you cannot tell who the subscriber is when a forwarded message bounces. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 6) You dropped *ALL* the list-management info headers. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 7) You rolled changes out with _NOBODY_AROUND_ to take complaints from users who noticed problems. 8) You are mailing to "undisclosed recipients". This indicates "less than competent", *lazy*, mailing-list management practices. AND making it impossible for the recipient to determine _what_ e-mail address the message was actually sent to, *if* for instance they need to change their subscription information on a 'forwarded' (or worse, _multiply-forwarded_) subscription address. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 9) Others report you lost some, if not all, of the established mailing 'preferences' for subscribers. *AND* all this was on the *second* attempt, having already utterly botched the first one. Reports were being sent to Mark's email (he who posted the announcement, the 'test' and the notice saying things were 'apparently working') roughly 2-1/2 hours after the -first- problem surfaced. SIX hours later the problem was still occuring. "Asleep at the switch" would seem to apply. Considering =ALL= of the above the statement that you have your "top people" working on the matter is not in the least reasurring. One *also* has to "wonder" -- considering all the other things that were 'lost', if the existing suppression filters -- specifically those which keep 'banned' traffic off the list -- were *also* 'lost'. One _really_ has to wonder "why" things are being moved off a tested, reliable, and fully reliable platform, to an "obviously" flawed implementation. Methinks the decision-makers owe the list subscribers _some_ explanation with regard to the 'advantages' to be gained by this migration, and why it is necessary.
Its great to see how quick a response we are getting, they have their top people working on it??? Perhaps my 14 year old son should apply for a job as one the trainers for the so called "experts" on this. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:14 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward Cc: nanog@nanog.org.r-bonomi.com In-Reply-To: <1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D@twincreeks.net>
Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward From: Steve Feldman <feldman@twincreeks.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700
We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it.
Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though.
You asked for it, you got it: 1) You broke *all* the mailing-list support addresses. 'nanog-owner' ,etc. *BOUNCE* "user unknown" see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 2) You let non-members post to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 3) You broke the mailing-list *submission* address itself, for subscribers. Although you let non-member *SPAM* through. 4) You have dropped _all_ the the received lines _before_ the message gets to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 5) You are *NOT* using 'custom 'From ' lines, meaning you cannot tell who the subscriber is when a forwarded message bounces. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 6) You dropped *ALL* the list-management info headers. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 7) You rolled changes out with _NOBODY_AROUND_ to take complaints from users who noticed problems. 8) You are mailing to "undisclosed recipients". This indicates "less than competent", *lazy*, mailing-list management practices. AND making it impossible for the recipient to determine _what_ e-mail address the message was actually sent to, *if* for instance they need to change their subscription information on a 'forwarded' (or worse, _multiply-forwarded_) subscription address. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 9) Others report you lost some, if not all, of the established mailing 'preferences' for subscribers. *AND* all this was on the *second* attempt, having already utterly botched the first one. Reports were being sent to Mark's email (he who posted the announcement, the 'test' and the notice saying things were 'apparently working') roughly 2-1/2 hours after the -first- problem surfaced. SIX hours later the problem was still occuring. "Asleep at the switch" would seem to apply. Considering =ALL= of the above the statement that you have your "top people" working on the matter is not in the least reasurring. One *also* has to "wonder" -- considering all the other things that were 'lost', if the existing suppression filters -- specifically those which keep 'banned' traffic off the list -- were *also* 'lost'. One _really_ has to wonder "why" things are being moved off a tested, reliable, and fully reliable platform, to an "obviously" flawed implementation. Methinks the decision-makers owe the list subscribers _some_ explanation with regard to the 'advantages' to be gained by this migration, and why it is necessary.
The tolerance of some of you out there is amazing. You must be PS3 users crying because your free game network is down. Maybe we can get a subscription service set up for you so you have something else to complain about. Be patient people. Maybe a little appreciation to these experts wouldn't hurt you either. -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd" -Jack Herer On 07/12/2011 11:16 AM, Ralph E. Whitmore, III wrote:
Its great to see how quick a response we are getting, they have their top people working on it??? Perhaps my 14 year old son should apply for a job as one the trainers for the so called "experts" on this.
Ralph
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:14 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Cc: nanog@nanog.org.r-bonomi.com In-Reply-To:<1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D@twincreeks.net>
Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward From: Steve Feldman<feldman@twincreeks.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700
We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it.
Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated, though.
You asked for it, you got it:
1) You broke *all* the mailing-list support addresses. 'nanog-owner' ,etc. *BOUNCE* "user unknown" see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 2) You let non-members post to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun 3) You broke the mailing-list *submission* address itself, for subscribers. Although you let non-member *SPAM* through. 4) You have dropped _all_ the the received lines _before_ the message gets to the list. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 5) You are *NOT* using 'custom 'From ' lines, meaning you cannot tell who the subscriber is when a forwarded message bounces. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 6) You dropped *ALL* the list-management info headers. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 7) You rolled changes out with _NOBODY_AROUND_ to take complaints from users who noticed problems. 8) You are mailing to "undisclosed recipients". This indicates "less than competent", *lazy*, mailing-list management practices. AND making it impossible for the recipient to determine _what_ e-mail address the message was actually sent to, *if* for instance they need to change their subscription information on a 'forwarded' (or worse, _multiply-forwarded_) subscription address. see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages 9) Others report you lost some, if not all, of the established mailing 'preferences' for subscribers.
*AND* all this was on the *second* attempt, having already utterly botched the first one.
Reports were being sent to Mark's email (he who posted the announcement, the 'test' and the notice saying things were 'apparently working') roughly 2-1/2 hours after the -first- problem surfaced. SIX hours later the problem was still occuring. "Asleep at the switch" would seem to apply.
Considering =ALL= of the above the statement that you have your "top people" working on the matter is not in the least reasurring.
One *also* has to "wonder" -- considering all the other things that were 'lost', if the existing suppression filters -- specifically those which keep 'banned' traffic off the list -- were *also* 'lost'.
One _really_ has to wonder "why" things are being moved off a tested, reliable, and fully reliable platform, to an "obviously" flawed implementation.
Methinks the decision-makers owe the list subscribers _some_ explanation with regard to the 'advantages' to be gained by this migration, and why it is necessary.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, -Hammer- <bhmccie@gmail.com> wrote:
The tolerance of some of you out there is amazing. You must be PS3 users crying because your free game network is down. Maybe we can get a PS3net users had a right to cry.. because their 'free' game network is not really free, and they bought a nice console that became a brick for indefinite amounts of time....
Be patient people. Maybe a little appreciation to these experts wouldn't hurt you either.
Patience is gold, but operating or migrating a listserv is not rocket science, and it cuts both ways. Only a certain amount of patience is warranted for any particular situation, and it appears posters have the warranted amount of tolerance. For now I am appreciative of Robert Bonomi and Brielle Bruns for identifying issues. I'll be happy to express appreciation, as soon as the "experts" get it done and get it right; right now I'm just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping to hear the news that the issues are addressed and everything's perfect. In the mean time; I am glad that the deficiencies witnessed are being reported. And hope the experts are learning, and at least taking the reports seriously, esp. regards to non-member posting, spam, "undisclosed-recipients" mess, and header issues/ oddball "bulk_mailer" identification... NANOG as an operators list should not itself become an example of poor operator practice; or poor planning/change management; that would be an embarassment.
-Hammer-
-- -JH
Good response Jimmy. I think that peoples tact more than anything is what is embarrassing about these threads. The complaint is legitimate. -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd" -Jack Herer On 07/12/2011 09:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, -Hammer-<bhmccie@gmail.com> wrote:
The tolerance of some of you out there is amazing. You must be PS3 users crying because your free game network is down. Maybe we can get a
PS3net users had a right to cry.. because their 'free' game network is not really free, and they bought a nice console that became a brick for indefinite amounts of time....
Be patient people. Maybe a little appreciation to these experts wouldn't hurt you either.
Patience is gold, but operating or migrating a listserv is not rocket science, and it cuts both ways. Only a certain amount of patience is warranted for any particular situation, and it appears posters have the warranted amount of tolerance.
For now I am appreciative of Robert Bonomi and Brielle Bruns for identifying issues.
I'll be happy to express appreciation, as soon as the "experts" get it done and get it right; right now I'm just keeping my fingers crossed and hoping to hear the news that the issues are addressed and everything's perfect.
In the mean time; I am glad that the deficiencies witnessed are being reported. And hope the experts are learning, and at least taking the reports seriously, esp. regards to non-member posting, spam, "undisclosed-recipients" mess, and header issues/ oddball "bulk_mailer" identification...
NANOG as an operators list should not itself become an example of poor operator practice; or poor planning/change management; that would be an embarassment.
-Hammer-
-- -JH
participants (4)
-
-Hammer- -
Jimmy Hess -
Ralph E. Whitmore, III -
Robert Bonomi