In-Reply-To: <1BE304A1-0DA0-4558-83AD-0E4F08F8146D@twincreeks.net>
Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
From: Steve Feldman <feldman@twincreeks.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700We're aware of the spam problem and have our top people working on it.
Reports of other lingering issues from the change would be appreciated,
though.
You asked for it, you got it:
1) You broke *all* the mailing-list support addresses.
'nanog-owner' ,etc. *BOUNCE* "user unknown"
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun
2) You let non-members post to the list.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun
3) You broke the mailing-list *submission* address itself, for
subscribers. Although you let non-member *SPAM* through.
4) You have dropped _all_ the the received lines _before_ the message
gets to the list.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
5) You are *NOT* using 'custom 'From ' lines, meaning you cannot tell
who the subscriber is when a forwarded message bounces.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
6) You dropped *ALL* the list-management info headers.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
7) You rolled changes out with _NOBODY_AROUND_ to take complaints from
users who noticed problems.
8) You are mailing to "undisclosed recipients". This indicates "less
than competent", *lazy*, mailing-list management practices. AND
making it impossible for the recipient to determine _what_ e-mail
address the message was actually sent to, *if* for instance they need
to change their subscription information on a 'forwarded' (or worse,
_multiply-forwarded_) subscription address.
see mark's inbox for a smoking gun -- one of the spam messages
9) Others report you lost some, if not all, of the established mailing
'preferences' for subscribers.
*AND* all this was on the *second* attempt, having already utterly botched
the first one.
Reports were being sent to Mark's email (he who posted the announcement,
the 'test' and the notice saying things were 'apparently working') roughly
2-1/2 hours after the -first- problem surfaced. SIX hours later the
problem was still occuring. "Asleep at the switch" would seem to apply.
Considering =ALL= of the above the statement that you have your "top people"
working on the matter is not in the least reasurring.
One *also* has to "wonder" -- considering all the other things that were
'lost', if the existing suppression filters -- specifically those which
keep 'banned' traffic off the list -- were *also* 'lost'.
One _really_ has to wonder "why" things are being moved off a tested,
reliable, and fully reliable platform, to an "obviously" flawed
implementation.
Methinks the decision-makers owe the list subscribers _some_ explanation
with regard to the 'advantages' to be gained by this migration, and why
it is necessary.