NANOG List Update - Moving Forward

Tue Jul 12 16:25:46 UTC 2011

The tolerance of some of you out there is amazing. You must be PS3 users 
crying because your free game network is down. Maybe we can get a 
subscription service set up for you so you have something else to 
complain about.

Be patient people. Maybe a little appreciation to these experts wouldn't 
hurt you either.

-Hammer-

"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer

On 07/12/2011 11:16 AM, Ralph E. Whitmore, III wrote:
> Its great to see how quick a response we are getting, they have their top people working on it???  Perhaps my 14 year old son should apply for a job as one the trainers for the so called  "experts" on this.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:14 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>    