[OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

Fri Dec 3 06:32:37 UTC 2004

Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> We're not in school, we don't need suspensions. We need to act like 
> adults, use this list for it's intended purpose. If someone is a dodo 
> for a message or two here or there, then, well, we tolerate it and 
> move on, maybe someone on the list sends that person an email saying, 
> "Dude, your email was dopey, please stop." If the person continues to 
> be a dodo, get rid of the problem. It's as simple as that. I think we 
> all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above category of 
> having to be gotten ridden of. Again, it's all relative.
>
> So, go ahead and ask, "But, that won't work, will it?"
>
> My rebutt: It's how inet-access (people from 1993 to 2000 or so will 
> know what this is) worked, and, well, except for the very occasional 
> whack-job, it worked well. It was a useful list. The reason it died

Rumors of inet-access's death are greatly exaggerated.  It's quieter 
now, but it's not dead, we had 168 posts in the past 3 months, so an 
average of about 2 a day.  It tends to come in a bursty fashion, quiet 
for a few days, then someone posts a question and there is a flurry of 
replies.

> had nothing to do with S:N on that list; it had to do with the fact 
> that the industry supporting that list more or less evaporated. 

Very true, there are far fewer ISPs (especially small ISPs) today.  
Subscription numbers to the inet-access list have been falling steadily 
since the dot.bomb.  Many people who used to work at ISPs now work for 
vendors or other non-ISP companies and have left the list (or are just 
lurking these days). 

List subscription info at:

<http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list>

jc