[63763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Wired mag article on spammers playing traceroute games with trojaned boxes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Damian Gerow)
Thu Oct 9 21:40:30 2003
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:39:51 -0400
From: Damian Gerow <damian@sentex.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0310092105550.20542-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
(I dislike meta-discussion, but since it /is/ applicable to the list...)
Thus spake Sean Donelan (sean@donelan.com) [09/10/03 21:32]:
> Susan did not say it wasn't an operational issue. She said there are
> other lists which focus on that issue.
Agreed.
> There are many subjects of interest to operators which occasionally
> flare up on NANOG, but then move to other lists. BIND issues concern
> network operations, but a namedroppers list exists for the topic.
> Peering is of operational interest, but the model-peer mailing list
> exists for the topic. Network time synchronization if of interest to
> operators but then the ntp newsgroup exists for the topic. Network
> security is of interest to operators, but then nsp security mailing
> lists exists for the topic. Address hijacking is of interest to
> operators, but then the hijack mailing list exists for the topic.
So if there's a more specific list for every operational issue, should we
just shift discussion off to those lists? Should NANOG exist simply as a
live resource for 'What mailing list should I consult for ...'?
