[142738] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph E. Whitmore, III)
Tue Jul 12 12:21:50 2011
From: "Ralph E. Whitmore, III" <ralphw@interworld.net>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:16:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201107121507.p6CF7i7h033220@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Its great to see how quick a response we are getting, they have their top p=
eople working on it??? Perhaps my 14 year old son should apply for a job a=
s one the trainers for the so called "experts" on this.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:14 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
Cc: nanog@nanog.org.r-bonomi.com
In-Reply-To: <1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D@twincreeks.net>
> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
> From: Steve Feldman <feldman@twincreeks.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700
>
> We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it.
>
> Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be=20
> appreciated, though.
You asked for it, you got it:
1) You broke *all* the mailing-list support addresses.
'nanog-owner' ,etc. *BOUNCE* "user unknown"
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun
2) You let non-members post to the list.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun
3) You broke the mailing-list *submission* address itself, for=20
subscribers. Although you let non-member *SPAM* through.
4) You have dropped _all_ the the received lines _before_ the message =20
gets to the list.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
5) You are *NOT* using 'custom 'From ' lines, meaning you cannot tell
who the subscriber is when a forwarded message bounces.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
6) You dropped *ALL* the list-management info headers.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
7) You rolled changes out with _NOBODY_AROUND_ to take complaints from
users who noticed problems.
8) You are mailing to "undisclosed recipients". This indicates "less=20
than competent", *lazy*, mailing-list management practices. AND=20
making it impossible for the recipient to determine _what_ e-mail=20
address the message was actually sent to, *if* for instance they need=
=20
to change their subscription information on a 'forwarded' (or worse,
_multiply-forwarded_) subscription address.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
9) Others report you lost some, if not all, of the established mailing
'preferences' for subscribers.
*AND* all this was on the *second* attempt, having already utterly botched =
the first one.
Reports were being sent to Mark's email (he who posted the announcement, th=
e 'test' and the notice saying things were 'apparently working') roughly
2-1/2 hours after the -first- problem surfaced. SIX hours later the=20
problem was still occuring. "Asleep at the switch" would seem to apply.
Considering =3DALL=3D of the above the statement that you have your "top pe=
ople"
working on the matter is not in the least reasurring.
One *also* has to "wonder" -- considering all the other things that were 'l=
ost', if the existing suppression filters -- specifically those which keep =
'banned' traffic off the list -- were *also* 'lost'.
One _really_ has to wonder "why" things are being moved off a tested, relia=
ble, and fully reliable platform, to an "obviously" flawed implementation.=
=20
Methinks the decision-makers owe the list subscribers _some_ explanation wi=
th regard to the 'advantages' to be gained by this migration, and why it is=
necessary.
