[87507] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Wed Dec 21 22:01:08 2005
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:00:30 -0500
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: "Daniel Roesen" <dr@cluenet.de>, "nanog list" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C606A3.DE8C2C90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Daniel - it should be public IMO only because you don't want some lesser =
experienced operators wandering into these IRC brothels and catching =
something or worse, giving them something...so to speak. I can wander =
into any chat really and say I'm vaul pixie and make you do bad things =
potentially, like make you buy a CB and contact me on 'secure' Channel =
19 with your name server password so I can 'help'. That's 'bad', yes =
yes, digital certs, pgp, etc. All that.
I wouldn't cry if IRC was deprecated, or archie, or gopher, but..that'll =
never happen so better to use education as the 'jimmy hat'. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de]
Sent: Wed Dec 21 21:50:27 2005
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> >>I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
> >
> >That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks =
who
> >do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of =
them:
> >"dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". =
:-)
> >
> >Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is =
enough
> >self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
>=20
> It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited.
You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one I
was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a
reply to the list) isn't named #nanog.
Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been off-list
anyway. :-Z
Best regards,
Daniel
--=20
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
------_=_NextPart_001_01C606A3.DE8C2C90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Daniel - it should be public IMO only because you =
don't want some lesser experienced operators wandering into these IRC =
brothels and catching something or worse, giving them something...so to =
speak. I can wander into any chat really and say I'm vaul pixie =
and make you do bad things potentially, like make you buy a CB and =
contact me on 'secure' Channel 19 with your name server password so I =
can 'help'. That's 'bad', yes yes, digital certs, pgp, etc. All =
that.<BR>
<BR>
I wouldn't cry if IRC was deprecated, or archie, or gopher, but..that'll =
never happen so better to use education as the 'jimmy hat'. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Daniel Roesen [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dr@cluenet.de">mailto:dr@cluenet.de</A>]<BR>
Sent: Wed Dec 21 21:50:27 2005<BR>
To: nanog list<BR>
Subject: Re: #nanog: was Re: =
<A HREF=3D"http://weblog.disgu.st">http://weblog.disgu.st</A> down<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:<BR>
> >>I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators =
could chat.<BR>
> ><BR>
> >That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog =
folks who<BR>
> >do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one =
of them:<BR>
> >"dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was =
ever in". :-)<BR>
> ><BR>
> >Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there =
is enough<BR>
> >self discipline to stay mostly on topic.<BR>
><BR>
> It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I =
visited.<BR>
<BR>
You are certainly talking about a different channel than me. The one =
I<BR>
was talking about (and that should have been a private reply, not a<BR>
reply to the list) isn't named #nanog.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, apologies to stir this discussion, it should have been =
off-list<BR>
anyway. :-Z<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Best regards,<BR>
Daniel<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C606A3.DE8C2C90--
