North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: mail operators list

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Tue Oct 30 22:42:54 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8kQr4PKaAyCZFg1ac2XqsuVgIL+FRfW8hGSBIBV4ECs=; b=IexZB367JbpPkuXeM01A9yonZS9U43O0mcZreRMWTHprAPFDBVGHgqhxMJq1D+hj/+RXup9JGvukB9zRGkgbH36r/TOxu5CnxM1/hd2PspuTa8q2EA9BeQQjL4x8Sjg4SQDTXJyF4I7j4huKVYsIuFPIUOeeO8Ry4MH0j9inlCU=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=j5vSx3mWnjFJWLKJZGDP/OulFfejJ65RZ+9z/NM8fk/1qaro+udofFKFi0lYhnk6YpXUSlK9sAZzz+9eHMESCcyuORpkWD+EcbU+XbxEKjv/EAy6BP+bi24PkkLqqdNYar11S3GfMwfsOVYdUJpKB4spxHIQmkmeNLKfLYrOusw=
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 <[email protected]> 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.