Why is NANOG not being blacklisted like any other provider that sent 500 spam messages in 3 days?

Mon Oct 26 21:11:22 UTC 2015

Myth: Andrew’s post has utility to the 10K+ people reading it. (Not watching Twitter makes me braindead? really? Yeah, it’s 2015. Get up-to-date, should have sent a snapchat. Duh.)

Fact: Andrew should probably just un-sub since he finds NANOG useless. That would actually provide utility to the rest of us.

I repeat: The UN-PAID VOLUNTEERS on the Communications Committee do a great job. If you think you can do better, please please please volunteer. Otherwise, simply thank them for doing what you refuse to do and get on with your life.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane at trelane.net> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Myth: NANOG supposed to be the gold standard for best practices.
> Fact: 500 spam messages over the weekend.
> 
> Myth:  there were no complaints and this issue was raised over the weekend
> Fact: I raised it this weekend via twitter twice @NANOG, and requested
> contact from SCNET (NANOG's upstream) trying to find a live person to shut
> it off.
> 
> Myth: blah blah blah social media is a bad way to get ahold of netops/abuse.
> Fact: Social media is an acceptable way to report abuse.  My marketing
> department certainly knows how to get ahold of me when such an issue
> occurs. It's 2015, and if you and everyone you know isn't watching twitter
> I can't help you, because you've gone braindead.
> 
> Myth: but you could have reached out to someone else and maybe done
> something to stop this quickly.
> Fact: I reached out to several people at ARIN and elsewhere trying to get a
> live person at NANOG to no avail.
> 
> Myth: this is acceptable because NANOG has political clout in the US and
> elsewhere.
> Fact: If I was still running the AHBL, NANOG would be it's own private
> intranet right now.
> 
> 
> Andrew