nanog mailing list archives
Re: Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:26:45 -0500 (EST)
Just about everyone here is running multiple *NIX servers on a *.NET somewhere, including Phil Howard.
This is distinctly not the point. There are mailing lists for people who manage networks. There are mailing lists for people who manage endsystems. NANOG is one of the former, not the latter. Yes, most people with networks have endsystems. Yes, most people with endsystems have networks. This doesn't mean that endsystem issues belong on network-management mailing lists. Given that there are a lot more endsystem administrators than network operators (at least, for North American Networks that are Large, which is what NANOG is for), it makes sense for endsystem issues to be addressed in an endsystem-specific forum, so that all the endsystem administrators can find out. I concur strongly with Bradley's initial understanding, so far as to be scared that the question was even asked and entertained, beause it shows how far off the mark a lot of people's interpretations are. Doubtless those interpretations are off the mark because of the level of low-grade traffic to the mailing list in the past 2 years has been extremely high, and it's hard to reset expectations. No question, I and my colleages find ourselves engaging in an uphill battle. Nevertheless, we shall not give up and shall strongly perservere. The charter of the list was written to avoid being too specific and to not preculude useful network-relevent discussion, because sometimes this kind of thing is appropriate, but trying to cleanly delineate it is harder than most tasks in the life of a network engineer. As a parting shot, messages where the sum of the quoted text and the signature exceed the body are generally considered poor form. This is, of course, not a good excuse to introduce meaningless drivel into your communications. --jhawk
At 11:37 AM 12/14/98 , Bradley Reynolds wrote:As a general question, is this mailing list concerned with the operation of end nodes? It was always my thought that network operations covered the ether between end nodes. I don't want to start a big debate, though I would prefer a public answer by a clued party. BR On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Phil Howard wrote:Just a few minutes ago, another attempted IMAPD breakin. This one originated from rock.careers.csulb.edu [134.139.149.100]. It was logged at Dec 14 16:59:56 CST.
Current thread:
- heads up ... another imapd attack source Phil Howard (Dec 14)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Christian Nielsen (Dec 14)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Craig A. Huegen (Dec 14)
- Security clearinghouses (was Re: heads up ... another imapd etc.) John Bashinski (Dec 16)
- Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source) Bradley Reynolds (Dec 14)
- Re: Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another imapd attack Phil Howard (Dec 14)
- Re: Question about NANOG charter Hui-Hui Hu (Dec 14)
- Re: Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source) Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 14)
- Re: Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another John Hawkinson (Dec 15)
- Re: Question about NANOG charter (Re: heads up ... another Jeff Aitken (Dec 16)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Christian Nielsen (Dec 14)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 14)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source David P. Maynard (Dec 14)
- Message not available
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 15)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Dave Crocker (Dec 16)
- Re: heads up ... another imapd attack source Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 15)