[104692] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason J. W. Williams)
Fri May 23 12:30:19 2008
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:29:33 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4836CDB3.5030104@spacething.org>
From: "Jason J. W. Williams" <williamsjj@digitar.com>
To: "Sam Stickland" <sam_mailinglists@spacething.org>,
"Joe Abley" <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I'm subscribed to both now. ;-) The advantage to the NANOG subject
header was obviously it was resilient to e-mail address changes for the
list. A nice attribute given e-mails now come in from both
nanog@nanog.org and nanog@merit.edu addresses. Anyhow, I assume there
was compelling reason for the change.
-J
---
Jason J. W. Williams
COO/CTO, DigiTar
http://www.digitar.com
E: williamsjj@digitar.com
V: 208-343-8520
M: 208-863-0727
F: 208-322-8520
XMPP: williamsjj@digitar.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Stickland [mailto:sam_mailinglists@spacething.org]=20
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:59 AM
To: Joe Abley
Cc: nanog; nanog-futures
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2008, at 23:16, James R. Cutler wrote:
>
>> The announcement was made to nanog-announce, but not to nanog. I=20
>> would expect that there are scads more readers of nanog than of nanog
>> announce.
>
> When I was sending things to nanog-announce, it was the case that mail
> to nanog-announce was sent to people who had specifically subscribed=20
> to that list, plus anybody who hadn't but who was subscribed to nanog=20
> (in other words, it was sent to the union of both lists).
>
> That might have changed since the transition to mailman. It seemed=20
> like a useful approach, though.
>
Kinda makes you wonder what the purpose on the announce list is though.=20
Are there actually people subscribed to nanog-annouce that aren't=20
subscribed to nanog?
Sam
!SIG:4836ce2871591551116042!
