Postmaster Operator List?
steve at blighty.com
Fri Nov 16 19:27:57 UTC 2007
On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 22:13 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2007 10:04 PM, Leigh Porter
>> <leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com> wrote:
>>> If there was, I sure would not join it. It'd be full of "I cannot
>>> mail to your domain blah blah"
>> Been to a MAAWG meeting yet? Or been on one such list?
>> There's a lot more interesting and useful / operationally relevant
>> stuff that goes on.
>> From www.maawg.org: "Your company must be a member of this
> for you to gain access to the members area of this site"
Well, yes. That's why it's called the "members area". There's a bunch of
information there that is not in the "members area" (as well as some
should be, but isn't, IMO but what can you do?).
> Ok, so it's still a good-ole-boys club. Interestingly enough, a
> lot of
> the names on the "approved" companies are some of the ones that can't
> very effectively control inbound/outbound spam from their net blocks.
> How long has MAAWG been in existence? Has email Abuse gotten
> better or
All of which is covered on the maawg website, IIRC, should you want to
look, rather than rant.
> Perhaps if they weren't so exclusive....
It being slightly exclusive keeps the idiots out, and reduces the "I
mail to your domain blah blah" to a negligible level. It's only about
$3k / year to be
a corporate member, so it's not that high a bar to any company that
cares about email.
If you want a forum solely about email operations that's open to any
a mail client, you risk attracting all sorts of nutjobs on all sides
of the spam / filtering
issue. If you limit it to operators, you'll attract the subset of
those nutjobs who also
claim to be operators. You'll certainly attract a lot of write-only
traffic of the "I cannot
send mail to..." mentioned above too.
More information about the NANOG