[48977] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SPEWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Thu Jun 20 14:58:25 2002
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
To: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20020620113700.F80341@bloomcounty.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:
> Fair enough. I agree with the idea in spirit. However, care must be
> taken to define acceptable criteria.
Oh, absolutely. Escalation is not something that should be taken lightly.
e.g. for MAPS, escalation was (is?) only used as a last resort.
> I think the concerns here (at
> least my concerns) are that a) some organizations do it before exhausting
> other avenues, and b) the avenues for removal from such listings can
> be difficult to nonexistent (as is the case with SPEWS, from the sound
> of it).
Agreed.
> I think one must be cautious to avoid seeking vengeance on something
> whose mere existence bothers them,
Yes. There are well-documented cases of people getting into trouble when
they let their personal opinions and emotions get in the way of running
such a list.
> Agreed. However, my impression from the initial post(s) in this thread
> is that the specific list(s) in question have not been doing this.
Yup. I think we have to be careful not to let this thread go completely
off-topic. I think I'm going to do a little more research before posting
further on the topic, though. As I said, I've never been in a situation
where I have to ask SPEWS to delist me.
--
Steve Sobol, CTO JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET
- I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each shoulder -
6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated a zero-tolerance
stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...
