Cc: na...@nanog.org.r-bonomi.com
In-Reply-To: <1be304a1-0da0-4558-83ad-0e4f08f81...@twincreeks.net>
> Subject: Re: NANOG List Update - Moving Forward
> From: Steve Feldman <feld...@twincreeks.net>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:00:51 -0700
>
> We'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.
