ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!! sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz gone!!!1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think you're confusing nanog-l with #nanog
ne one able to reach0r this site, it appearz to be d0wnz0rs!!!
sev0!!! 0h n0z!!! supply of cirpple and midget scat pix0rz
gone!!!1__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
right #nanog is 3 doors down to the left loaded with kiddies that
simply don't matter to network infrastructure.
Also could we please quickly kill this thread as it's utterly unimportant.
- --
Andrew D Kirch | Abusive Hosts Blocking List | www.ahbl.org
Security Admin | Summit Open Source Development Group | www.sosdg.org
Key fingerprint = 4106 3338 1F17 1E6F 8FB2 8DFA 1331 7E25 C406 C8D2
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I looked
around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to
organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel
to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?
Andrew Kirch wrote:
I’d like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. I looked
around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK. They bind channels to
organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG; this would allow the channel
to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone agree that this would be a good idea?Andrew Kirch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think you’re confusing nanog-l with #nanog
Actually, looks like #nanog on freenode is already registered as belonging to NANOG:
/msg chanserv info #nanog
chanserv< info #nanog
-ChanServ- Channel: #nanog
-ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago
-ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago
-ChanServ- Registered: 2 years 27 weeks 2 days (5h 49m 57s) ago
-ChanServ- Topic: North American Network Operators Group
-ChanServ- Email: biodragon2002@hotmail.com
-ChanServ- Options: Secure, SecureOps
-ChanServ- Mode Lock: -s
–chip
The channel is unused at this time.
> -ChanServ- Contact: Duke, last seen: 44 weeks 5 days (13h 25m 33s) ago
> -ChanServ- Alternate: kerx, last seen: 18 weeks 6 days (14h 27m 0s) ago
I checked with freenode staff; they confirmed that it is unused.
chip 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.
I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK.
They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG;
this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone
agree that this would be a good idea?
Who cares about organizations when it comes to exchange a few words
between operators?
Best regards,
Daniel
Daniel Roesen wrote:
from_nanog@corenap.com (Albert Meyer) writes:
I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat. ...
there are probably several of these, but to remain useful they have to remain
somewhat closed. most of you aren't old enough to remember "CB radio" but the
lesson in that for me (in 1975 or so) was, if anybody can talk, everybody will.
that having been said, i created <nanog@conference.jabber.tisf.net> for susan
during the recent (LAX) meeting and pretty much nobody used it. one could
charitably assume that it's because iChat's jabber support is pretty new and
most folks are happy with AIM, but my assumption is that most folks are happy
with the chatrooms they're already in, and don't need another one. what this
probably means for those of us who aren't in a chatroom we find useful, is
that we're just not interesting enough to get invited.
anyway, <nanog@conference.jabber.tisf.net> remains, and it's lonely there.
there's no password, invitations aren't required, and the server is open to
new account creations if you havn't already got enough jabber accounts.
i see that <funsec@conference.jabber.tisf.net> (also open, in similar ways,
as is the associated mailing list) is well attended, but full of, um, jabber
about all kinds of off-topic "CB radio" junk. ymmv, but isn't it inevitable?
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