Discussion:
Moderation etc.
(too old to reply)
Donald Neal
2003-03-28 01:31:53 UTC
Permalink
NZNOG People,

I'd like to make a number of comments about events on this list over the last couple of days. This is partly because I simply don't have the time to respond individually to all of the emails sent to me. Sorry.

But first, a brief chronology of some of this morning's events:

9:03 List notified that ***@yahoo.co.nz has been unsubscribed
10:11 List notified that phuct ***@msn.com has been unsubscribed
10:19 Abusive email with forged
Simon Blake
2003-03-28 02:07:10 UTC
Permalink
The existing process for dealing with idiocy in varying degrees relies
on the issuing of warnings. Faster issuing of warnings would result in
faster unsubscription of the determinedly anti-social. One way to
achieve that would be to move from having a single list administrator
to having more than one. Which raises the twin questions of whether
there'd be any volunteers for such a role, and "In whom do the people
trust?"
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to
join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett
new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.

Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to
serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will
have a closed membership).

Cheers
Si
- Donald Neal
List Administrator
--
Donald Neal | piano - a musical
Technical Specialist | shipping line.
Network Delivery | [ Graeme Garden ]
Telecom Corp. NZ Ltd |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read
it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not
copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it. Thank you."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Nznog mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Steve Wright
2003-03-28 03:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators
/first posting

Hang on, what about us in the background ?

I am here trying to learn. I get to sit at the back of the room and
listen to Gurus talk - no better place to learn. I don't /dare/ post
here - out of respect.

Don't kick us off, please.. I don't care if I don't have permission to
post, but being subscribed is important to me.
Post by Simon Blake
[....] Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.
spose..


/last posting

/steve
Drew Whittle
2003-03-28 04:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Wright
I am here trying to learn. I get to sit at the back of the room and
listen to Gurus talk - no better place to learn. I don't /dare/ post
here - out of respect.
You dared to post here, where is your RESPECT!

<g>

:D
Karl B
2003-03-28 07:27:27 UTC
Permalink
They're all coming out of the wood work...

I'm not a network op but I look at this list with interest as I know do friends
of mine, I'm against the idea of moderating or closing this list because
although we lurkers don't generally post there may come a time where we have
something useful to post, or an on topic question...would you rather we harass
one of the members to post this us or email them individually asking them our
questions?

I generally have a lot of respect for NOs and although you maybe/are part of the
'elite', closing the list to people who don't have the 'right' job (even if they
have the knowledge or the desire to learn) seems to be going rather far to me.

Also you did say leave the archives open, I may just be weird (I have been told
so many times) but there is something different about being subbed to a list (a
long with my first point)

BTW, do you really want to see a message every times someone goes to subscribe?

- Karl
Post by Simon Blake
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to
join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett
new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to
serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will
have a closed membership).
Cheers
Si
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to
join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett
new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks
to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably
will have a closed membership).
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
this list are probably able to do so as well.

Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
--
Juha Saarinen
Simon Blake
2003-03-28 02:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
Post by Simon Blake
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to
join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett
new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks
to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably
will have a closed membership).
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that
he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list
with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm
asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody
who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and
be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person
to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd
expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
this list are probably able to do so as well.
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the
effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is minimal,
on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day, then there
probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to
grease the operation of the NO community?

Cheers
Si
Dean Pemberton
2003-03-28 03:00:42 UTC
Permalink
I think the list is fine as it is.
It was a small outburst, it was delt with, move on.

NZNOG is so low volume now that it's a moot point.

I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today
to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.

But hey, I've been wrong before.



Dean (Unmoderated, Unrestricted list, and make the conference free while
you're at it)
Jeremy Brooking
2003-03-28 03:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Pemberton
Dean (Unmoderated, Unrestricted list, and make the conference free while
you're at it)
Now THAT I can agree with :)


Oh and the 'smackdown' laid on those with 'Autoresponders' replying to
their list mail!
Russell Fulton
2003-03-28 03:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Pemberton
I think the list is fine as it is.
It was a small outburst, it was delt with, move on.
NZNOG is so low volume now that it's a moot point.
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today
to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
I agree with Dean, let's not get carried away over one incident. If
this sort of thing becomes a regular problem then we deal with it by
changing procedures but don't let one incident stampede us.

Personally I'd be happy to have the culprits back on the list (after a
suitable cooling off period) on the understanding that if they put a toe
out of line in future then they are out for good. That's generally the
line I take with infractions on our network.

The issue of restricting the list membership is tricky -- what about
people like Nevil Brownlee and myself, neither of us are directly
involved in network operations anymore.
--
Russell Fulton <***@auckland.ac.nz>
The University of Auckland
Hugh Lilly
2003-03-31 00:16:56 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:00 PM +1300 [NZDT],
Post by Dean Pemberton
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of
today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
Thank you.
--
© 2002 Hugh Lilly. | PGP ID: 0x064D2C0D
blog: http://hugh.orcon.net.nz
nntp//rss: http://www.methodize.org/nntprss
Am I dead or alive? http://user.diedonline.com/status/1580
Jeremy Brooking
2003-03-28 03:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that
he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list
with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm
asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody
who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and
be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person
to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd
expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
Exactly what is the definition of a 'NZ network operator" though? Some
of those who fit that description should be on this list far less than a
few of those who do not fit in there at all.


I believe if the above was done, it would come down to a case of who you
know, not what you do or what you know. For example, would you grant me
access to this list, i know I fit in the definition of a 'NZ network
operator" better than others who would be granted access. But does
anyone know that?


I would like to see a few more admins, who take a stronger approach to
OT ramblings of others. I understand Don couldnt act as quick as many
would have liked, due to him having other responsibilitys. Had there
been other administrators on this list with the ability to act, I am
sure the previous threads would not have got as bad as they did.


Take baby steps to solve the problem, not totally rebuilding something
that isn't broken.


Regards,
Jeremy Brooking

OASN: Id rather see 1 off topic rant that I can ignore, than 1 500k
untrimmed unquoted top-posted on topic message :P
Gavin Quayle
2003-03-28 03:35:23 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
Hi,

I for one would be extremely disappointed if the list became "verified
operators only" as it were.....
I may not be an operator but I do work for an ISP and like to keep up with
what is happening in the NZ networks without getting it "2nd hand" from
others.

I know of a few other "non-operator yet ISP" types who read this list and
probably agree with my view.
Just because a few idiots have caused some trouble shouldnt mean the rest of
us should suffer. :(

Please keep it open and free :)


My 2c for the year....

Gavin Quayle
QSI
(Disclaimer: Opinions are mine and mine alone and don't represent my
employer or any companies associated with that employer)
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
And I forgot to say the most important thing... the off-topic posters were
ISP staff, which would presumably make them bona-fide NOGers.

So closing the list sounds like a pointless remedy.
--
Juha Saarinen
Michael Hallager
2003-03-28 02:32:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:17, Juha Saarinen wrote:

[SNIP]
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
I quite agree. There are many networks in NZ and many operators.
Would op's of internet connected companies qualify or just op's of ISP's?
Would VISP's qualify? Alot of them don't know very much about
operating an Internet network, which is why they are "VISP's", and yet
they should still be welcome here and be able to contribute.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
this list are probably able to do so as well.
I say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to some of Sahil's friends causing
trouble. I vote that we ignore them and continue on as per usual.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without closing
NZNOG based on the whims and ideals of a few.
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at that.
Lets keep it that way.
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and do
the same?

Michael Hallager
Managing Director
Comsolve Networks (NZ) LImited
Networkstuff Limited

-------------------------------------------------------
Simon Blake
2003-03-28 03:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hallager
[SNIP]
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
I quite agree. There are many networks in NZ and many operators.
Would op's of internet connected companies qualify or just op's of ISP's?
Would VISP's qualify? Alot of them don't know very much about
operating an Internet network, which is why they are "VISP's", and yet
they should still be welcome here and be able to contribute.
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as
an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need
to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the
current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I
imagine this would become "unless you're a really annoying piece of
work, and somebody complains vociferously about your request to join,
you'll get on".

Note that I'm basically discussing "rights to post" here. I'm not
suggesting that the archives shouldn't be public, and if there was a way
to allow Joe Random Public to join readonly without a vetting process,
then that's all good as well.
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
this list are probably able to do so as well.
I say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to some of Sahil's friends causing
trouble. I vote that we ignore them and continue on as per usual.
It's been a thought that's occurred to me and others every so often
during at least the last four years. We could ignore them, or we could
try and fix NZNOG to be a better thing, coz at the moment it's broken,
teenagers or no.
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without closing
NZNOG based on the whims and ideals of a few.
So, there are lots of closed lists, so we shouldn't tidy our one?
Post by Michael Hallager
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at that.
The Internet isn't *meant* to be anything. It just is. I don't believe
that the orginal creators of the 'net had anything to say about its
democratic value. I'm prepared to stand corrected, of course.

There are costs and barriers you must overcome to become a network
operator. Why shouldn't there be a small barrier to you participating
in a network operators list?
Post by Michael Hallager
Lets keep it that way.
Sounds like an arguement for untrammelled access to your mailbox by
spammers to me.
Post by Michael Hallager
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and do
the same?
I didn't realise that criticism of the "The NZ closed club of the
Internet" was part of NZNOG's role. Maybe that should be put on the
list info pages :-).

Cheers
Si
Mark Derricutt
2003-03-28 05:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as
an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need
to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the
current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I
I tend to lurk here usually in a read-only mode, I'm not an operator, but I
find the list a good source of info relating to the current state of the NZ
Net and wouldn't like to see it closed off. However, a default read-only
mode could be good, and those who want/need to post, could be auth'd
somewhere to allow posting...

Maybe.
Jeff Williams
2003-03-28 06:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Michael and all,

I agree fully with Michael here. Well done sir!
Post by Michael Hallager
[SNIP]
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
I quite agree. There are many networks in NZ and many operators.
Would op's of internet connected companies qualify or just op's of ISP's?
Would VISP's qualify? Alot of them don't know very much about
operating an Internet network, which is why they are "VISP's", and yet
they should still be welcome here and be able to contribute.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on
this list are probably able to do so as well.
I say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to some of Sahil's friends causing
trouble. I vote that we ignore them and continue on as per usual.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without closing
NZNOG based on the whims and ideals of a few.
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at that.
Lets keep it that way.
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and do
the same?
Michael Hallager
Managing Director
Comsolve Networks (NZ) LImited
Networkstuff Limited
-------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Nznog mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail ***@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Andy Linton
2003-03-28 02:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to
serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will
have a closed membership).
I agree with Simon on this.

andy
Jamie Baddeley
2003-03-28 03:54:56 UTC
Permalink
for what it's worth I agree with this.

alternatively don't accept list members that have disposable email addresses (hotmail.com, email.com, msn.com, yahoo.co.nz etc etc), or a perverse fascination with bonzai buddy ;-)


jamie
The existing process for dealing with idiocy in varying degrees relies
on the issuing of warnings. Faster issuing of warnings would result in
faster unsubscription of the determinedly anti-social. One way to
achieve that would be to move from having a single list administrator
to having more than one. Which raises the twin questions of whether
there'd be any volunteers for such a role, and "In whom do the people
trust?"
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are
genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to
join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett
new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages
and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're
up to.

Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the
Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ,
otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to
serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will
have a closed membership).

Cheers
Si
- Donald Neal
List Administrator
--
Donald Neal | piano - a musical
Technical Specialist | shipping line.
Network Delivery | [ Graeme Garden ]
Telecom Corp. NZ Ltd |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read
it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not
copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it. Thank you."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Nznog mailing list
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that
he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list
with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm
asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody
who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and
be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person
to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd
expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
It's hard to see how that would work in an objective fashion. The members
chosen to vet those wanting to join would have rather a lot of power, and
power tends to get abused.

Let's take a purely hypothetical example, where the chosen few decide not
to let someone join the list. It could be that the person's with a company
that competes against one or more of those that the list membership
electors belong to.

How would that go down?
Post by Simon Blake
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the
effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is
minimal, on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day,
then there probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
I don't think that a closed list would be of any use should ISP staff
decide to sabotage the s/n ratio.
Post by Simon Blake
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to
grease the operation of the NO community?
Well, if you want to "grease the operation" of a chosen few and exclude
others, then no, you shouldn't care.

It just seems to go against the whole Internet spirit, what you're
proposing.
--
Juha Saarinen
Simon Blake
2003-03-28 03:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
Post by Simon Blake
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that
he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list
with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm
asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody
who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and
be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person
to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd
expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
It's hard to see how that would work in an objective fashion. The members
chosen to vet those wanting to join would have rather a lot of power, and
power tends to get abused.
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100
email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then
when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless
anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Let's take a purely hypothetical example, where the chosen few decide not
to let someone join the list. It could be that the person's with a company
that competes against one or more of those that the list membership
electors belong to.
How would that go down?
Hypothetically, how do you know it's not happening now? Answer, you're
reliant on the impeccable good name list admin and his employer. Why
shouldn't you continue to rely upon that?

I'm suggesting that a list member would have to make a fairly compelling
case to preclude somebody joining. Otherwise, your request to join will
proceed as usual, with just some delay as it gets rubber stamped through
the list membership.
Post by Juha Saarinen
Post by Simon Blake
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the
effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is
minimal, on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day,
then there probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
I don't think that a closed list would be of any use should ISP staff
decide to sabotage the s/n ratio.
So we shouldn't try to fix the s/n ratio, because we might fail?
Post by Juha Saarinen
Post by Simon Blake
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to
grease the operation of the NO community?
Well, if you want to "grease the operation" of a chosen few and exclude
others, then no, you shouldn't care.
It just seems to go against the whole Internet spirit, what you're
proposing.
I'm proposing a meritocracy. It's entirely in keeping with the Internet
spirit.

Cheers
Si
Simon Byrnand
2003-03-28 04:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Lyall
Post by Simon Blake
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100
email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then
when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless
anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
I'm a great believer in leaving things alone. Currently we have a large
number of people on the list who aren't exactly "network operators" . The
vast majority of these people are no problem and don't even post. Some of
them will post sometimes when something in their area comes up.
I agree with this. There are a lot of people that "lurk" on this list, both
"network operators" and not, who most people aren't even aware of since
they hardly ever post. However they often have something useful to say in
the right situation.

If the subscriber list was going to be built back up from scratch based on
peer agreement about who is "ok" then a lot of these people would get a
"who the heck are they" from the "regulars", and potentially be left out.
Post by Simon Lyall
People only cause a problem if they start posting in variance with the
charter. If they do then they can be warned and if required removed. If
they resubscribe and cause further problems then the list can be
moderated until the go away.
So far AFAIK this has only happened a couple of times in the last year or
so and only this week has someone actually been removed.
The whole response is a bit of a kneejerk reaction IMHO...
Post by Simon Lyall
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there
are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as
opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder
and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to
join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that....

Regards,
Simon Byrnand
Lurking network operatory type person
iGRIN Internet
James Tyson
2003-03-28 04:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Byrnand
Post by Simon Lyall
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there
are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as
opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder
and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to
join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that....
Despite soundling like an AOL newbie, I want to say <ME TOO> on this..
this list, in terms of subscribee's is pretty damn big.

When it comes to extra moderators I would probably nominate:

* Simon Lyall, who's ongoing moderation and maintenance of nz.* hasn't
gone unnoticed.

* David Zanetti, if he is still alive/subscribed to the list, as he has
moderation experience with nz.politics.announce.

Actually, that's it. I just went through my old archives way back to
1999 and when you sort by sender and fold threads you can see who tends
to get into a little bit of religious fervour (some of those old SRS &
buffoon threads are doozies).

No, I am not a big fan of usenet, but if you can deal with the crap pile
that is usenet, then nznog should be a walk in the park :)
--
James Tyson <***@samizdat.co.nz>
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as
an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need
to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the
current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I
imagine this would become "unless you're a really annoying piece of
work, and somebody complains vociferously about your request to join,
you'll get on".
Of course, all the peers would be totally objective and not have any
commercial affiliations etc that would influence their decisions...
--
Juha Saarinen
Simon Blake
2003-03-28 03:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juha Saarinen
Of course, all the peers would be totally objective and not have any
commercial affiliations etc that would influence their decisions...
This is not a list from which you gain competitive advantage, it's a
list that you go to to get the ear of other operators. It gains value,
the more operators there are on it, and that's an incentive for current
members to "approve by default". Therefore, I don't imagine that the
list membership are going to give a flying about commercial
considerations when they approve/disprove somebody.

Cheers
Si
Juha Saarinen
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100
email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then
when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless
anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
A "prospect"? It seems you're after some unholy mix of /. and the Mongrel
NOG.

The list is fine, and Don isn't doing too poor a job of looking after it.
I don't think it's fair to ask him to take more responsibility for it than
he already has, let alone more work.
Post by Simon Blake
Hypothetically, how do you know it's not happening now? Answer, you're
reliant on the impeccable good name list admin and his employer. Why
shouldn't you continue to rely upon that?
That doesn't quite follow. The list is open now, and you get chucked out
if you misbehave. A closed list doesn't work like that.
Post by Simon Blake
I'm suggesting that a list member would have to make a fairly compelling
case to preclude somebody joining. Otherwise, your request to join will
proceed as usual, with just some delay as it gets rubber stamped through
the list membership.
Seems pointless then.
Post by Simon Blake
So we shouldn't try to fix the s/n ratio, because we might fail?
I'm just objecting to pointless maneouvres that won't fix the s/n ratio,
that's all.
Post by Simon Blake
I'm proposing a meritocracy. It's entirely in keeping with the
Internet spirit.
No, you're proposing a closed club.

But anyway... I don't want to continue this discussion.
--
Juha Saarinen
Ian Quinn
2003-03-28 03:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
Note that I'm basically discussing "rights to post" here. I'm not
Simon Blake [mailto:]
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Maybe the same thing could be done here. Then if they abuse it, shift
people off the read/post list more aggressively than currently is the
case. They don't lose the ability to hear what's going on.


Regards / Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Blake [mailto:***@citylink.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:03 PM
To: Michael Hallager
Cc: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] Moderation etc.
Post by Michael Hallager
=20
=20
[SNIP]
=20
Post by Juha Saarinen
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to
work out
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie.
network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify
who
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
=20
I quite agree. There are many networks in NZ and many operators.
Would op's of internet connected companies qualify or just op's of
ISP's?
Post by Michael Hallager
Would VISP's qualify? Alot of them don't know very much about
operating an Internet network, which is why they are "VISP's", and yet
they should still be welcome here and be able to contribute.
Trial by a jury of your peers. If the members of the list know you as
an operator, you get on. If they don't, you don't. There doesn't need
to be any formal defn of what constitutes an operator, merely that the
current members are happy for you to be on the list. In practice, I
imagine this would become "unless you're a really annoying piece of
work, and somebody complains vociferously about your request to join,
you'll get on".

Note that I'm basically discussing "rights to post" here. I'm not
suggesting that the archives shouldn't be public, and if there was a way
to allow Joe Random Public to join readonly without a vetting process,
then that's all good as well.
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates.
If they
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm
sure
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants
on
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
this list are probably able to do so as well.
=20
I say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to some of Sahil's friends
causing
Post by Michael Hallager
trouble. I vote that we ignore them and continue on as per usual.
It's been a thought that's occurred to me and others every so often
during at least the last four years. We could ignore them, or we could
try and fix NZNOG to be a better thing, coz at the moment it's broken,
teenagers or no.
=20
Post by Michael Hallager
Post by Juha Saarinen
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
=20
There is enough "clubs" and "secret societies" in the world without
closing
Post by Michael Hallager
NZNOG based on the whims and ideals of a few.
So, there are lots of closed lists, so we shouldn't tidy our one?
Post by Michael Hallager
The Internet is meant to be a tool of democracy and an open one at
that.

The Internet isn't *meant* to be anything. It just is. I don't believe
that the orginal creators of the 'net had anything to say about its
democratic value. I'm prepared to stand corrected, of course.

There are costs and barriers you must overcome to become a network
operator. Why shouldn't there be a small barrier to you participating
in a network operators list?
Post by Michael Hallager
Lets keep it that way.
Sounds like an arguement for untrammelled access to your mailbox by
spammers to me.
Post by Michael Hallager
How can we criticise [The NZ closed club of the Internet] if we go and
do
Post by Michael Hallager
the same?
I didn't realise that criticism of the "The NZ closed club of the=20
Internet" was part of NZNOG's role. Maybe that should be put on the
list info pages :-).

Cheers
Si
Simon Lyall
2003-03-28 03:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100
email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then
when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless
anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
I'm a great believer in leaving things alone. Currently we have a large
number of people on the list who aren't exactly "network operators" . The
vast majority of these people are no problem and don't even post. Some of
them will post sometimes when something in their area comes up.

People only cause a problem if they start posting in variance with the
charter. If they do then they can be warned and if required removed. If
they resubscribe and cause further problems then the list can be
moderated until the go away.

So far AFAIK this has only happened a couple of times in the last year or
so and only this week has someone actually been removed.

If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there
are several people here that would be happy to help.
--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Mark Foster
2003-03-28 04:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Byrnand
Post by Simon Lyall
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there
are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as
opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder
and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to
join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that....
I agree with the above; I'm helping administer the NZLUG List for this
very reason; the list admin was too busy right when we needed some fairly
prompt attention to the list, so I offered to assist...

The offer would stand for NZNOG too but I dare say there are people who
are possibly 'better regarded' on here who should be filling that role.

2 or 3 admins in total - people who look at their email a lot, probably
- would be good nominees here. Its only fair not to expect Donald to have
to run the entire thing himself. :)

I also disagree with the concept of a 'moderated' list. I did toy with
suggesting moderated-subscription but I agree this would cause a lot more
problems than it would solve .... a team of list admins who between them
can monitor for 'idiot behavior' would be my best reccomendation.

I was one of those 'young people' who needed to be under someones wing a
few years ago and didn't really have the option - a few of you will
probably remember that with a cringe - but it really is a steep learning
curve for you guys and friendly guidance from NZNOG types really does go a
long way.

Cheers,

Mark.
Zanetti David
2003-03-28 05:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Lyall
I'm a great believer in leaving things alone. Currently we have a
large number of people on the list who aren't exactly "network
operators" . The vast majority of these people are no problem and
don't even post. Some of them will post sometimes when something
in their area comes up.
I tend to support this view. I'm sure I don't qualify as a "network
operator" by implying a definition from people's posts, but I don't believe
I've been seeding the list with problems, and one or two trouble makers just
need to be dealt with and we move on.

Ironically I suspect more traffic will be created by debating this than was
created by the orignal outburst or the last six months..

IMO. :)
--
David Zanetti <***@nzpost.co.nz>
Desk: +64-4-496-4005 Mobile: +64-25-832-572
"Hope.. is a dangerous thing"


This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege. If it is not intended for you please reply immediately, destroy
it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way.
Matthew Poole
2003-03-28 05:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jamie Baddeley
for what it's worth I agree with this.
alternatively don't accept list members that have disposable email addresses
(hotmail.com, email.com, msn.com, yahoo.co.nz etc etc), or a perverse
fascination with bonzai buddy ;-)
*SNIP*

My immediate thought on reading that we've had subscriptions
cancelled was that the list should reject subscriptions from free-mail
providers like the ones listed above.

As for the rest of the discussion, I don't think that closing the list
would be helpful. As others have said, our posting level has been
pretty minimal of late - The last few days excepted.
--
Matthew Poole
Auckland, NZ

http://www.p00le.net

"Three pills a day keeps the voices at bay"
Matthew Poole
Ewen McNeill
2003-03-28 12:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Blake
The existing process for dealing with idiocy in varying degrees relies
on the issuing of warnings. [....] One achieve that would be to move
from having a single list administrator to having more than one. [...]
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership?
[delete all; add only "genuine NZ network operators"]
I'm not sure if I officially get a say (I probably don't count technically
count as a "genuine NZ network operator"), but I've been around the 'net
a fair while now, and I'm opinionated, so I'm going to have one anyway.

Some points in vague order:
- I know of a bunch of people who are not technically "genuine NZ
network operators" who benefit from reading the list (and more have
posted in this thread) -- "up and coming" people, people loosely
related to network operation who wish to stay "in touch" with what is
going on (I'm probably most accurately in that category), etc.

- For the most part those people get the benefit from reading, rather
than posting to the list; "read only" access might well be sufficient
99% of the time for them.

- Following a list (in "real time") by reading archives on the Interweb
sucks. Screen scraping off the archives of a mailing list that are
on a web page into email again to make it easier to follow is rather
baroque. (But better than trying to follow discussions in real time
on the Interweb; seems 20 years of UI discoveries got thrown out when the
WWW got invented....)

- People who "listen but don't talk" don't create much of a disturbance
to the list operation. There aren't really (m)any secrets where
public knowledge in "real time" would be an issue.

- So if there needs to be moderation (note: I've not yet expressed a
view), then it need only be on the posting side. "Read only"
subscriptions could be left open to "those who can understand the
content" or similar with no obvious downside.

- Moderation of all postings is very disruptive to discussion
particularly of things happening in real time (not to mention a high
load on the moderator(s))

- Therefore it is probably desirable that as few postings as possible
be moderated, without allowing the list to be flooded with large
volumes of off topic stuff.

- The set of people who post (on topic) often is relatively small, and
relatively static, and could probably be maintained by hand by a small
(eg, one person) team of moderators.

- So if there is to be moderation (note: still not expressing a view)
a potentially more workable solution is not to moderate who can join
the list read-only; just to moderate who can post, and "hand moderate"
the remaining posts. People posting a few good posts would be added
to the "can post without additional moderation" list.

Over a short period of time (especially with pre-seeding) those
posting "on topic" messages would get put on the "can post without
additional moderation" list, and that list would be fairly static.
This should be relatively non-intrustrive, and relatively non-demanding
on moderator time.

This basically boils down to Simon (Blake)'s proposal, but with the
restriction being on "posting access" only. The only real catch is
"when good posters go bad", which could perhaps be dealt with in the
same way as now (but with the implicit addition that their newly
invented addresses would not immediately gain posting access).

As to the original question:
- I lean towards the point of view that this has basically been a
one-shot deal and going closed-list/all-moderated/etc over it is
probably an over-reaction. If people would stop feeding the trolls
(even off list) then it'll probably all die a natural death.

- As such I'm not particularly in favour of moderation.

- With a little arm twisting I would be willing to be one of a team of
moderators for the list (on a "if it needs to be done, and no one
else is doing it" basis). I could recite a list of reasons why I'm
qualified, but what it boils down to is that I've been about the NZ
Internet for quite a while, seen my share of flame wars, etc, but don't
work at any network operators so would hopefully be seen as neutral.
(As I said above, I'd rather it wasn't moderated. But if it is, I'm
willing to help out if necessary)

Ewen
Terence Bllyth
2003-03-31 01:20:32 UTC
Permalink
I second that !!

Terence Blyth
Managing Director
Computer Technologies Ltd
19 Alma Street
Box 584, Nelson
New Zealand
Phone ++ 643 545 9001
Fax ++ 643 545 9002
www.ctec.co.nz

PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
use
of the addressee(s) and may contain information, which is confidential
or
privileged. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee (or
responsible for delivery of the email to the addressee), please
disregard
the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author
immediately.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Lilly [mailto:***@gmx.net]
Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 12:17 p.m.
To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz; Dean Pemberton
Subject: Re: [nznog] Moderation etc.

On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:00 PM +1300 [NZDT],
Post by Dean Pemberton
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of
today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
Thank you.
--
C 2002 Hugh Lilly. | PGP ID: 0x064D2C0D
blog: http://hugh.orcon.net.nz
nntp//rss: http://www.methodize.org/nntprss
Am I dead or alive? http://user.diedonline.com/status/1580
Ewen McNeill
2003-10-13 18:50:33 UTC
Permalink
And snooping on Citylink (which is implemented as a big LAN) shows
much-higher-than-I'd-normally-expect volumes of ICMP echo requests
Just a small point of protest here, there isn't higher volumes of
anything floating around Citylink
And to be fair, it's ages since I've had reason to look, so "higher
than I'd expect" is probably a pretty low standard. And a chunk of
the volume was definitely NAT'd traffic outgoing; but not all of it.
So these various worms are clearly still drifting about.

You may well be right however that it was (mostly|just) stuff that was
routed to/from that 'net; the volumes were such that it was difficult
to get an accurate picture of exactly which addresses were involved it
at the time.

Sorry for implying otherwise.
Increased worm probing tends to manifest as increased ARP requests,
rather than ICMP packets. That, FWIW, is why 95% of all the
noise-to-every-port on Citylink is ARP requests to unused IP numbers.
Likewise on the TelstraClear cable network -- there's a steady
background level of ARP requests all the time, good for keeping the
incoming data light flickering away to itself.

Ewen
Ewen McNeill
2006-02-15 00:37:17 UTC
Permalink
We've been using greylisting here for the last six months, and it's made
a huge difference to the amount of noise [.... through other filters ....]
I would set your timeout to be really low - 15 seconds would be as
effective as 30 minutes, as far as I can see.
I can't help wondering how long this beneficial effect of greylisting
will last. It's not _that_ difficult for a spammer to ask their
purchased botnet to run its spam list twice. Worst case they need twice
as many bots. It's not like it's hard to buy 0wn3d machines these days.
Those with greylisting enabled get the message once; those without may
well get it twice. Bonus.

If greylisting becomes relatively common that's exactly what I'd expect
spammers to do. And viruses to do. (Viruses can simply follow the same
PRNG or discovered list twice. Perhaps 30-60 minutes apart. Not much
extra work, for much more effectiveness.)

So what do we do next? Defer twice before accepting? Give up on
greylisting? And then get two copies (or three copies)?

Seems to me that the end result of this particular "arms race" is that
mail delivery gets permanently delayed (since no one can "safely" turn
off greylisting without getting multiple copies of the junk), and we end
up no further forward on the spam/virus problem.

Not that I really see an option which doesn't end up "email becomes even
more useless" over a relatively short period of time. Frankly I'm
amazed it's lasted this long. We've had 5+ years of what is effectively
a sustained denial-of-service attack on email.

Ewen
Nicholas Lee
2006-02-15 19:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ewen McNeill
PRNG or discovered list twice. Perhaps 30-60 minutes apart. Not much
extra work, for much more effectiveness.)
What's to stop them doing this anyway, regardless of greylisting. In
fact spammers are likely to do it anyway. Consider the first spammer
to do it is going to have more volume than other spammers. Soon
they'll all be copying each other. Eventually everyone will start
using default deny for email.
Post by Ewen McNeill
Seems to me that the end result of this particular "arms race" is that
mail delivery gets permanently delayed (since no one can "safely" turn
off greylisting without getting multiple copies of the junk), and we end
up no further forward on the spam/virus problem.
Seems like for the normal person with the volume of spam increasing
constant email might eventually become essentially useless. Even the
big guys have issues. I stopped using yahoo mail because they couldn't
seem to deal with spam.

--
Nicholas Lee
http://stateless.geek.nz
gpg 8072 4F86 EDCD 4FC1 18EF 5BDD 07B0 9597 6D58 D70C
Ewen McNeill
2006-03-27 19:58:18 UTC
Permalink
4) should we have a sysadmin stream?
As the person who suggested this (al beit with the prompting of Simon
Lyall who was hunting for ligntning talks!), I should say that the
motivation is more that there is a small, but growing, group of people
interested in reviving SAGE-NZ, who are looking for a conference venue.

There were quite a few New Zealanders at the System Administrators
miniconf at Linux.Conf.Au in Dunedin in January:

http://sysadmin.miniconf.org/program.html

Many of them seemed interested in doing it again. But the next
Linux.Conf.Au is in Sydney, and so it's likely (based on past experience)
that not many of them will make the trip.

Since SAGE-NZ isn't really built up enough to run its own independent
conference the obvious solution is to find some appropriate existing
conference and run something in conjunction with that. NZNOG is an
obvious one because there's a reasonable overlap between those that
expressed an interest in "doing it again" and NZNOG attendees already.
And indeed between what a "system administrator" and a "network
administrator" does.

If NZNOG is not interested (or stronger, unwilling) to act as host
to such a miniconf then that's obviously understandable. But if it
is willing to act as host, then I think it'd be best seen as helping
SAGE-NZ out, perhaps getting a few more people to help organise things,
giving NZNOG attendees an option to learn more about the application layer,
and maybe coincidentally helping a few more people justify attending
(if only to themselves).

After some discussion with Simon Lyall, et al, I suspect the best
approach would be a one-day miniconf aligned with the NZNOG tutorial
day. That kind of miniconf approach has worked very well for
Linux.Conf.Au (which now has half a dozen of them regularly on the days
immediately prior to the main conference) and doesn't seem to noticably
distract people from the main conference.

But of course if y'all really hate the idea, then SAGE-NZ will need to
figure something else out.

Ewen

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...