[194822] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Russian diplomats lingering near fiber optic cables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben McGinnes)
Fri Jun 2 13:27:18 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 03:25:22 +1000
From: Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <38c4e9c00a96d8094003e0c64e8f2900@visp.net.lb>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--lms2ldznm7hgewbz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 05:52:43PM +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
>
> https://www.nanog.org/list
> 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited.
> It is quite clear.
That's a fair point.
The crypto dev world does have a tendency to veer into two of those
three (political and legal) with a little more regularity, usually by
necessity. So I do tend to weave in and out of those "off" topics
without getting too hung up on the creeping FUD in some quarters. At
times they'll even have practical requirements which need addressing;
which is why somewhere in one of my GPGME branches there's a completed
ITAR questionairre - definitely political, very legal and absolutely
required in order to continue the technical work at all.
I'd be surprised if there were not similar types of issues affecting
some aspects of various networks. Most likely pertaining to
international routes and even more likely subject to confidentiality
agreements of various types (not just everyone's favourite bugbear of
national security).
> I do not deny networks sometimes are deeply affected by political
> factors, but current discussion is pure FUD, based on very
> questionable MSM source. IMHO any sane person wont like to receive
> this trash in his mailbox in list, that supposed to be
> politics-free, as there is enough of this garbage in internet.
And it's the role of NANOG to make sure all that FUD gets where the
conspiracists intended it to go. Isn't it great ... :)
> Thanks for the hint, fixed, i use this domain only for old maillist
> subscriptions,
> so i missed that, after i migrated SMTP to my private server.
I entirely understand, I've been tweaking mine a fair bit recently,
weighing up the local Postfix instance vs. not having as great a
control over the network as I'd like and ultimately deciding to run it
all through the MX. I noticed it because I was double-checking return
headers to be sure my own systems are doing, more or less, what
they're supposed to. Especially since the current MX is set the way
it is for technical, legal and political reasons (basically the mail
server is in a jurisdiction with *far* greater privacy protections
than my own country).
Regards,
Ben
--lms2ldznm7hgewbz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=E7Xw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--lms2ldznm7hgewbz--
