North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

The state of NANOG

  • From: Richard A. Steenbergen
  • Date: Fri Jul 14 23:30:05 2000

<rant>

At the risk of generating more useless traffic that noone cares about,
could please try and show a little more maturity on NANOG? The occational
diversion is nice, but noone wants to sort through spoof mails from "Vaul
Pixie" or "Bandy Rush" every day to fill someone's #nanog or #cisco vanity
fix. Noone wants to hear about the personal tales and tribulations of .god
and the little roach that could. Noone wants to hear the latest rant about
the moral righteousness of someone's spam or RFC1918 filters. NANOG is NOT
the replacement for whois and a phone book, if you can't get ahold of
someone from some of these company's you havn't tried hard enough (for
example, if you're looking for an abovenet engineer, why don't you try
mailing noc@above.net, I'm sure you'll find one), and if you want to post
messages and then ignore your private responses you don't need to tell us
about it. And for the love of god, if you can't read a book, try asking
your Alcatel coworkers about your beginner questions before you make a
useless post to NANOG. If we wanted to read these things we'd subscribe to
inet-access.

Please, no reply's to this (cc'd 4 times) with "I agree", no ensueing
debate on making NANOG moderated, no spoofed CERT advisories about the
insecurities of "Vaul Pixie", just realize that its time to knock it off,
and maybe stop to think before you open your mail composer.

</rant>

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>   http://www.e-gerbil.net/humble
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)