North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: mail operators list

  • From: Al Iverson
  • Date: Tue Oct 30 13:40:06 2007

On 10/30/07, Andy Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2007, at 16:21, Daniel Senie wrote:
> > At 12:07 PM 10/30/2007, Al Iverson wrote:
> >> On 10/30/07, chuck goolsbee <[email protected]> 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:
> > 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
> > 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
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists:
My personal website:   --   Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.