NANOG-futures

[steve]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 01:01:34PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> 
> [Don't know if you're on futures or not Gadi, please if you are 
> don't both with the 'courtesy cc' back to me.]
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:04:23AM -0500, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Sep 24, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Great. What is appropriate for NANOG?
> 
> Part of the evolution/changes were about being less "prohibitive" 
> in this realm.  That still does not change it to an open-ending,
> "anything goes" realm.  It is really as simple as Mr Underwood has
> described it.
> 
> Official FAQ: http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html#topics
>  Appropriate Topics
>  NANOG discussions are on-topic if they're of interest to people 
>  running wide-area networks interconnected with other networks. 
>  "Network operations" in this context means issues related to 
>  entire networks, rather than to end users.
> 
>  Appropriate topics include routing, broad-based engineering
>  problems/issues/solutions, outages, performance measurement, 
>  evolving wide-area technologies, exchange points, traffic 
>  engineering, operational experience, ISP security, and trouble 
>  ticket systems.
> 
> FAQ Wiki: http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/The_NANOG_Mailing_List
>  Relevant Items
>   * Router questions
>   * Routing protocols and other Layer4 denizens
>   * Network Operation matters
>   * Network Management Tools and Issues
>   * Peering and Interconnections
>   * Billing and Accounting 
>  Not So Relevant Items
>   * NANOG organization and meta-topics
>   * Dead horses and tired topics
>   * End User Issues
>   * Stuff totally out in left field
>   * Stuff that is only sometimes relevant 

ack that joe.. 

i'm struggling to keep up with the 'meta-topic' wibbling

i'm really struggling to see the point of this persistence wrt botnets - doesnt seem to be benefiting a lot of people, the poster included.

Steve