[185476] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: spam smackdown?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Oct 26 17:37:47 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGfsgR3ZbxN5Jyb3jMG1NY1F+S94vtSD3ogstrYwMY=Q37z1Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:03:26 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 26, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Jim Popovitch <jimpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> =
wrote:
>> It looks like someone's trying to make a point.
>=20
> The takeaway is:
>=20
> 1) NANOG doesn't seem to do simple inbound spam filtering :-)
In fairness to the Communications Committee (of which I have zero =
influence or power), a few points:
1) They apparently filtered it more than a day ago, we are just seeing =
the queue drain. Which is not surprising on a mailing list of > 10K =
email addresses.
2) Inbound spam filtering is VERY HARD on something like NANOG. How many =
people here post things like samples of spam? Imagine the backlash: =
=E2=80=9CThis is an operational list. How could you not expect =
operational content to include samples?!?!?! AAARRGGGGGHHHHHHHh =
HRHFLSHFBEAW% =
^&*DKJHFSLkdjh@#%asltrifhuawlekhtfweq5r1r#@%!@#QWEGDAwsgfhqw!!!!111!!!!=E2=
=80=9D (That is honestly what I expect of some posters here=E2=80=A6.)
3) Anyone who feels this is so frickin=E2=80=99 bad it is unbearable, =
and knows they could do SO MUCH BETTER themselves, should volunteer for =
the Communications Committee. Otherwise, everyone should thank the =
unpaid volunteers for their gracious and excellent work day after day, =
year after year. Or just STFU.
For my part, I would just like to thank the CC members. I think they do =
a most amazing job, and deserve of humblest gratitude.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
