nanog mailing list archives
Re: [External] Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?
From: Hunter Fuller via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:35:05 -0500
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:16 AM Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
Without a word of exaggeration, it operates as if the developers had never seen a working mailing list. Quoting, signatures, sender addresses, reply-to addresses, HTTP vs text, archiving, threading, configuration - you name it, they screwed it up. Not in minor ways either.
Let me begin by stating that I prefer to participate via mail, and I understand all of these things just fine. However, I must point out that none of these things have the slightest bit to do with network engineering, aside from the fact that people on NANOG-L seem to expect you to understand them. It seems to me that the goal of the board is to allow participation by people who are skilled network engineers but do not care about HTML mail, top posting, or any of this other stuff that only seems to ever come up on this list. And I agree with that idea. And as a final aside (not directed at you, Karl), lots of people on this list seem to try to dunk on email clients that don't support killfiles. In fact, I don't think such a thing exists. Even Gmail, one of the most widely used email services, supports this. They just call it "mute" and you do it by pressing 'm' on your keyboard. However, lots of email clients exist that can't properly read HTML mail or top-posted replies. Maybe people should stop using these incapable clients and switch to something at least as capable as Gmail. Then there would be no need for anyone on NANOG-L to understand these idiosyncrasies. -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering
Current thread:
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?, (continued)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Edward McNair (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? james.cutler () consultant com (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Jim Popovitch via NANOG (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? james.cutler () consultant com (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Edward McNair (Mar 23)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Alfie Pates (Mar 23)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Mark Tinka (Mar 23)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? David Siegel (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Jim Mercer (Mar 23)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Karl Auer (Mar 22)
- Re: [External] Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Hunter Fuller via NANOG (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's not time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? John Levine (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's not time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Michael Hallgren (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Joe Provo (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Jim Mercer (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? bzs (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? William Herrin (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Tom Beecher (Mar 22)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? David Siegel (Mar 19)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Rich Kulawiec (Mar 20)
- Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Niels Bakker (Mar 20)
