NANOG List Update - Moving Forward

Tue Jul 12 15:07:44 UTC 2011

Cc: nanog at nanog.org.r-bonomi.com
In-Reply-To: <1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D at twincreeks.net>

> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
> From: Steve Feldman <feldman at 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.