Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] DNS Weather Report 2004-09-07
Since a storm seems to be rising about this and it threatens to leave the tea cup here is some perspective. Daniel ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> ----- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:21:23 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> To: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] DNS Weather Report 2004-09-07 On 08.09 00:00, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 07.09 01:08, Daniel Roesen wrote:
DNS WEATHER REPORT for selected infrastructure zones ====================================================
Please stop spamming mailing lists.
OK, you made me curious. Why do you (you are the first, all the other feedback was overly positive) consider this "spamming"?
Sending *unsolicited* automatic reports to *multiple* mailing lists is considered bad netiquette. In your case even more so since similar and better defined reports are available on demand from more than one source. It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here." These days netiquette is violated so frequently that most people do not even care to point things out to violators; they just ignore messages from people who do not behave socially. Procmail is an easy tool. [I spent 6 minutes composing this message. Multiply by n>20 / day]
And: was your request as a representant of the RIPE NCC, or as a private person?
Take it as advice from me as a person. The RIPE NCC does not police RIPE mailing lists. Daniel ----- End forwarded message -----
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:07, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Since a storm seems to be rising about this and it threatens to leave the tea cup here is some perspective.
Which book is that from? <SNIP>
On 08.09 00:00, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 07.09 01:08, Daniel Roesen wrote:
DNS WEATHER REPORT for selected infrastructure zones ====================================================
Please stop spamming mailing lists.
OK, you made me curious. Why do you (you are the first, all the other feedback was overly positive) consider this "spamming"?
Sending *unsolicited* automatic reports to *multiple* mailing lists is considered bad netiquette.
I really can't call it spam, there was nothing unsolicited inside it, they where not autogenerated, did not contain any off-topic contents and it did not advertise for anything.
In your case even more so since similar and better defined reports are available on demand from more than one source.
Which sources may that be that report about nameservers? (There is unfortunatly no IPv6-wg resource page and google can't seem to find them for me either) Next to that, it is quite apparent that the operator(s) in question are not really watching their own infrastructure, which is basically their work, at all.... that gives one to wonder...
It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here."
Indeed, where can I request to signup for this as I think it is very useful, even more useful than the CIDR report, which doesn't change as the people at the top are simply ignoring it anyways. Nameservers though are technically important, if they are configured wrongly then they don't work and they break stuff and especially at the level what was being reported about I think it is a very important technical report.
These days netiquette is violated so frequently that most people do not even care to point things out to violators; they just ignore messages from people who do not behave socially. Procmail is an easy tool.
Indeed, that is the way most people do it and they do it silently without making it publicly noticeable that they have something, whatever that may be 'against' some person/company or his/her/it's beliefs. That is why I always use one single mail address for posting my own personal beliefs, if you want to add it to the killfile have fun doing so, responses coming back from persons who don't like you won't be productive in any way thus it only saves a lot of useless mails. Greets, Jeroen (Only took me <1 min to type this ;)
I'm not considering the report as a spam but... The report would be more usefull if you send a summary on a monthly basis. Sending the report daily or even weekly is way too often... If needed you can provide daily snapshots somewhere else (a web page perhaps?). --> Jarno Lähteenmäki Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:07, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Since a storm seems to be rising about this and it threatens to leave the tea cup here is some perspective.
Which book is that from?
<SNIP>
On 08.09 00:00, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:49:48AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 07.09 01:08, Daniel Roesen wrote:
DNS WEATHER REPORT for selected infrastructure zones ====================================================
Please stop spamming mailing lists.
OK, you made me curious. Why do you (you are the first, all the other feedback was overly positive) consider this "spamming"?
Sending *unsolicited* automatic reports to *multiple* mailing lists is considered bad netiquette.
I really can't call it spam, there was nothing unsolicited inside it, they where not autogenerated, did not contain any off-topic contents and it did not advertise for anything.
In your case even more so since similar and better defined reports are available on demand from more than one source.
Which sources may that be that report about nameservers? (There is unfortunatly no IPv6-wg resource page and google can't seem to find them for me either)
Next to that, it is quite apparent that the operator(s) in question are not really watching their own infrastructure, which is basically their work, at all.... that gives one to wonder...
It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here."
Indeed, where can I request to signup for this as I think it is very useful, even more useful than the CIDR report, which doesn't change as the people at the top are simply ignoring it anyways. Nameservers though are technically important, if they are configured wrongly then they don't work and they break stuff and especially at the level what was being reported about I think it is a very important technical report.
These days netiquette is violated so frequently that most people do not even care to point things out to violators; they just ignore messages from people who do not behave socially. Procmail is an easy tool.
Indeed, that is the way most people do it and they do it silently without making it publicly noticeable that they have something, whatever that may be 'against' some person/company or his/her/it's beliefs. That is why I always use one single mail address for posting my own personal beliefs, if you want to add it to the killfile have fun doing so, responses coming back from persons who don't like you won't be productive in any way thus it only saves a lot of useless mails.
Greets, Jeroen
(Only took me <1 min to type this ;)
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:13:58AM +0300, Jarno Lähteenmäki wrote:
The report would be more usefull if you send a summary on a monthly basis. Sending the report daily or even weekly is way too often...
Point noted. I'm also thinking of extending the interval to bi-weekly or even monthly.
If needed you can provide daily snapshots somewhere else (a web page perhaps?).
As the report is done manually (with help of the automated tool "doc"), this is not really an option. Best regards, Daniel
On 08.09 18:09, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 17:07, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Since a storm seems to be rising about this and it threatens to leave the tea cup here is some perspective.
Which book is that from?
My own ;-).
I really can't call it spam ...
A matter of definition. Maybe I was a bit harsh using the word spam. My feeble excuse for being harsher than usual is that <rant> I returned from holidays recently found my daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net mailbox had grown about 3000 messages **each day**. Also the spam-filtering of the NCC was not only letting about 10% of it through but was also starting to generate false positives. This SPAM filtering is maintained by competent professionals, and *still* I have to resort to personal whitelisting now and spend significant amout of time to weed out messages which I do not want. </rant> Daniel sent these messages to multiple mailing lists and he did not take the hint when his messages were not re-distributed to nanog; instead he sent them twice with different message-ids, causing the messages to land in my mailbox twice. So I decided to give him another hint, he took it as an official request, and the storm-in-a-teacup started.
... Which sources may that be that report about nameservers? (There is unfortunatly no IPv6-wg resource page and google can't seem to find them for me either)
google(dns delegation check) does it for me. The fourth hit is for http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/r45-minutes.html Check out agenda point F. There are tools available with well defined and discussed methodologies.
Next to that, it is quite apparent that the operator(s) in question are not really watching their own infrastructure, which is basically their work, at all.... that gives one to wonder...
I agree. But why do regular messages about this belong into the mailbox of all subscribers of all the lists Daniel posts to?
It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here."
Indeed, where can I request to signup for this as I think it is very useful ....
Daniel? Daniel
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:11:20AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Daniel sent these messages to multiple mailing lists and he did not take the hint when his messages were not re-distributed to nanog;
I _did_ take a hint as someone pointed my to the possibility that NANOG auto-filters crossposts. Except for things like the CIDR report. I also _did_ take a look at NANOGs list policy which says that crossposts are discouraged, but not forbidden.
So I decided to give him another hint,
You call that a hint? Many people have many options. I've got about 20 private feedback mail to the report, many of them from operators in charge of the analyzed zones, well-known names of the DNS scene and even large european TLD operators who asked me to do a similar report for their own TLD. Except some IXP operator who has a personal agenda, you were the only one complaining up to now. _This_ is a hint for me.
Next to that, it is quite apparent that the operator(s) in question are not really watching their own infrastructure, which is basically their work, at all.... that gives one to wonder...
I agree. But why do regular messages about this belong into the mailbox of all subscribers of all the lists Daniel posts to?
Be assured that NANOG, ipv6-wg and v6ops are for sure not the only lists I post to. But those are lists directly relevant in regard to the analyzed zones and reach the relevant audience, demonstratedly.
It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here."
Indeed, where can I request to signup for this as I think it is very useful ....
Daniel?
There is now a distro list at: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/dns-report Nevertheless, having the report posted to a wide audience is important, as operators may notice situations where they want to take action. And the report has demonstrated it's success very well. Compare the first report three weeks ago: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/2004/msg00192.html with the upcoming report. Breakage everywhere, now all fixed. The CIDR report is posted weekly to upteen mailing lists, but is actually about a political/social/economic problem, not even a technical like infrastructure DNS zone breakage. Do you consider it as spam too? If not, can we say "double standards"? Hint: the CIDR report is posted to wide public for the very same reasons as the DNS Weather Report. And I'm actually sure you know exactly what those reasons are. Regards, Daniel
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 05:07:22PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Sending *unsolicited* automatic reports to *multiple* mailing lists is considered bad netiquette.
And forwarding private email conversation to public mailinglists without asking correspondees permission is not considered bad netiquette? Double standards?
In your case even more so since similar and better defined reports are available on demand from more than one source.
Obviously those have NOT lead to getting problems fixed. I was SHOCKED about the ugly state of those vital infrastructure zones when I did the first survey.
It would have been more acceptable to say something like: "Hey, I have made this useful report. What do you think about it? If you are interested you can subscribe to regular reports here."
That makes it easy to ignore the problems, eh? See my other mail where I compare with the CIDR report.
These days netiquette is violated so frequently that most people do not even care to point things out to violators; they just ignore messages from people who do not behave socially. Procmail is an easy tool.
Feel free to procmail me away.
[I spent 6 minutes composing this message. Multiply by n>20 / day]
You've decided for yourself how much you expose yourself to public communication. Daniel
On 13.09 01:04, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 05:07:22PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Sending *unsolicited* automatic reports to *multiple* mailing lists is considered bad netiquette.
And forwarding private email conversation to public mailinglists without asking correspondees permission is not considered bad netiquette? Double standards?
I am sorry about that. Due to multiple interrupts this message escaped before it was completely edited. It was almost excluseively my text anyway. And now I will really stop adding to this thread. Daniel
participants (4)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Daniel Roesen -
Jarno Lähteenmäki -
Jeroen Massar