Re: [BEHAVE] Closing the mailing list

Toerless Eckert <> Fri, 10 January 2020 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8921208AB for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.869
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yqm0boZA4c3S for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD581208ED for <>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21234548047; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:38:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 193DC440059; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:38:41 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:38:41 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Cc: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Closing the mailing list
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:38:50 -0000

Thanks for sending the email, Magnus.


Too bad. Of course, folks who did not partake in BEHAVE would have no
idea that BEHAVE would be the right mailing list to ask about NAT/ALG/FW
transit questions, so the name is certainly not helpful to encourage
communications, but i can as of yet not see that the underlying issues
that led to BEHAVE have vanished from the Internet and even more so
private networks, and any other WG we have might be even less of a
welcoming community to discuss NAT issues sould they arise (just
imaginging how welcoming 6man is to any poor folks that (think they)
really need IPv6/IPv6 NAT).

Whats the benefit of closing the list ? If someone has calculated that
the 20 KByte of disk space required to maintain it on IETF servers costs
50 cents/quarter, i am happy to shoulder that cost.

Reminds me of fukoshima. There was a nice report that the last really
bad flood was something like 80 years ago, so everbody warning to
continue to be prepared died, and hence fukoshima was built as
badly as it was. Or if that was too far fetched: As long as NAT exists
as a challenge for the Internet, we should have a mailing list like BEHAVE,
absence of communications is just ongoing luck (or bad naming) but no argument for
removing the list (IMHO).


On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:15:03PM +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi,
> I am now closing the behave mailing list. Based on the lack of traffic on
> this list the last years it is clear that it can be safely closed down. 
> I want to thank you all that contributed to the Behave WG.
> Cheers
> Magnus Westerlund

> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list