|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Yahoo Mail Update
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:59AM -0500, Ross wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec <[email protected]> wrote: > > I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon) > > mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on mailop, > > on spam-l, etc. A lot of problems could be solved (and some avoided) > > with some interaction. > > Why should large companies participate here about mail issues? Last I > checked this wasn't the mailing list for these issues: It's got nothing to do with size ("large"); Joe's ISP in Podunk should be on this lists as well. And one of the reasons I suggested multiple lists is that each has its own focus, so those involved with the care and feeding of mail systems should probably be on a number of them, in order to interact with something approximating the right set of peers at other operations. (Of course not all lists are appropriate for all topics.) > But lets just say for a second this is the place to discuss company > xys's mail issue. What benefit do they have participating here? Likely > they'll be hounded by people who have some disdain for their company > and no matter what they do they will still be evil or wrong in some way. They're more likely to be hounded by people who have disdain for their incompetence and the resulting operational issues they impose on their peers. But if they're reluctant to face the unhappiness of their peers -- those whose networks, systems and users are abused on a daily basis and who thus have ample reason to be unhappy -- then maybe they should try something different, such as "doing their jobs properly". > It is easy for someone who has 10,000 users to tell someone who has 50 > million users what to do when they don't have to work with such a > large scale enterprise. This is mythology. Someone who can *competently* run a 10,000 user operation will have little-to-no difficulty running a 50 million user operation. (In some ways, the latter is considerably easier.) It's not a matter of the size of anyone's operation, it's a matter of how well it's run, which in turn speaks to the knowledge, experience, diligence, etc. of those running it. ---Rsk
|