Proposed list charter/AUP change?

Tue Jan 4 18:36:03 UTC 2005

Bill Nash wrote:

>   Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is 
> absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 
> 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this 
> category.
>
> Examples would include:
> Working enterprise-scale spam filtering (Hourly mail volume measured 
> in thousands)
> Discussion of edge/core SMTP filtering to curtail spam sources.
> Policy discussions for handling domestic and international spam sources.
> Implementation, or requests for implementation, of SPF and similiar 
> controls.
> Inter-network cooperation for handling large scale issues.
>
> I think this last is pretty much exactly what a list like this is for, 
> be it spam, regional power outages, BGP shenanigans, or widespread 
> squirrel detonations.

There are 2 problems with this.

1)  A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed 
regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the 
large number of people who have in-depth knowledge and regularly 
contribute on those topics.

2)  It is very hard to start talking about "spam" and limit the breadth 
of the replies to those that are on-topic for a network-operations 
focused list.  Spam makes people angry, and angry people want to rant 
about how much they hate spammers and the various things "we" or "they" 
should do to solve the problem at the source.  Angry people don't 
usually pay adequate attention to list policies so they blow over the 
policy line, time and time again.

For that reason, I believe that spam-related topics should be discussed 
on spam-l first, and then the topic should be raised on this list only 
if you can't find the info or contacts you need on the spam-specific 
list first.

I think the NANOG FAQ should elaborate on this distinction.

jc