AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

Bill Nash billn at billn.net
Wed Jun 13 04:30:00 UTC 2007


Sweet zombie jesus, this is the stupid thread that's ever, for lack of a 
better term, graced this list, and I think I was even party to the 
predecessor.

I am eternally in your debt for bringing us this new low.

- billn

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> 
> On 6/12/07, alex at pilosoft.com <alex at pilosoft.com> wrote:
> 
> [ clip ]
> 
> > > > If you disagree, and think that autoresponders are ok, I'll make sure
> > > > to set one up just for you ;)
> > >
> > > My argument is mostly social, in that we don't need, or want, the admins
> > > taking punitive positions on anything when the users can do it
> > > themselves.
> 
> > Users can't remove others who have autoresponders from mailing list.
> 
> But they can killfile the most standard error messages "out of office"
> and sink people who are repeat offenders. But that's if they even
> post. This means that the vast majority of users are unaffected. All
> but a few. And some that haven't posted in years. How are they getting
> these messages?
> 
> > > To put it bluntly, along with that, don't you have anything better to
> > > do?
> 
> > This is the top thing on my todo list. :)
> 
> 
> How unfortunate. You mischaracterize the original debate you weren't
> present for, you infer that the SC is holding you back because of the
> AUP, you received no consensus on any changes, Randy brought this
> particular issue up at the meeting for about 5 seconds and consensus
> was challenged in that there was barely anyone in the room _and_
> nobody has done any work to get anyone to participate,  and you think
> this is empowerment to act? You act on an issue that affects about 5
> people once every 2 years and you ignore the massive overload on the
> list of off topic posting?
> 
> This would be called a step backwards.
> 
> -M<
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list