nanog mailing list archives
RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william () elan net>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:31:35 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Joe Johnson wrote:
I wanted to say the same thing earlier, but a hands-off approach works best on NANOG. The question at hand is not whether procmail will work . . . It's whether procmail should have to work.
I don't want to use procmail for nanog posts, I've long enough rules already... I think to be more fair it would be good if suspensions were not permanent but for period of time (with period doubling or tripling on subsequent suspensions if it happens). At least people will not be as upset when they are suspended and know its just a period for them to calm down and do more reading of nanog then posting... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william () elan net
Current thread:
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Joe Johnson (Dec 02)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG william(at)elan.net (Dec 02)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Rubenstein (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG JC Dill (Dec 02)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul Vixie (Dec 03)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Patrick W Gilmore (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul G (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Paul Vixie (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Bligh (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Richard Irving (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Dan Hollis (Dec 04)
- Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG nanog gonan (Dec 06)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG Alex Rubenstein (Dec 02)
- RE: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG william(at)elan.net (Dec 02)