North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
- From: Hannigan, Martin
- Date: Wed Dec 21 22:02:14 2005
Title: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
Daniel - it should be public IMO only because you don't want some lesser experienced operators wandering into these IRC brothels and catching something or worse, giving them something...so to speak. I can wander into any chat really and say I'm vaul pixie and make you do bad things potentially, like make you buy a CB and contact me on 'secure' Channel 19 with your name server password so I can 'help'. That's 'bad', yes yes, digital certs, pgp, etc. All that.
I wouldn't cry if IRC was deprecated, or archie, or gopher, but..that'll never happen so better to use education as the 'jimmy hat'.
From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wed Dec 21 21:50:27 2005
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:06:02AM +0200, Gadi Evron 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.
> It looked more like an 3l33t hax0rs channel to me when I visited.
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
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: email@example.com -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0