|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape - on a couple ISDN lines
I've done two things in this reply that, if done by all who reply to a DNS-related thread, would save NANOG from being spammed by Fleming and his followers. (Note that Fleming posts his irrelevant drivel to NANOG since he *knows* that everybody on NEWDOM has already heard it.) 1. I added a "Reply-to: [email protected]", which Fleming's folks will remove since they DESPERATELY NEED to have their words visible to the NANOG audience, even knowing full well that NANOG does not want to hear their floof. 2. I removed all individuals from the To: and Cc: headers, leaving only the mailing lists. This keeps people from getting two copies of the reply, since they are clearly ON the mailing list. While I know that Denninger and Fleming and suchlike folks are not willing to honour anyone's stated desire to not hear their DNS flames, and they feel that the "Reply-to:" is an act of aggression against them since it seeks to control what they do, I hope that others will respect it and also that others will start removing individuals from CC: headers. People on NANOG are expected to be smart enough, and usually ethical enough, to edit mail headers. If you can't cope, consider unsubscribing or at least going into "lurk" mode and not adding replies to threads. > The majority (like the majority of non-NANOG members) support the IANA's > roots; at least one NANOG member runs an IANA root server. The IANA roots > are located mainly in North America, with one server at the LINX in > Telehouse, London. There's also one at NORDU.NET. > You, Karl, and various others have deployed your own servers, which have > largely been ignored by the other 99.5% of the general population. Actually that's 99.95%, not 99.5%. > NANOG as a whole can't be represented as having a single position on > anything; I'm surprised that you would think it could. NANOG as a whole was certain that Metcalfe was wrong. But the point is good. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|