Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list

Paul Vixie <> Sat, 02 October 2010 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6953A6D44; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvx7ilTpTMBF; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478AA3A6C74; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1u5S-000AM3-U1 for; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:42 +0000
Received: from [2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38] ( by with esmtps (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P1u5P-000ALi-TK for; Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3854BA1037 for <>; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from
From: Paul Vixie <>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Progress on moving the mailing list
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400." <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 04:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <>

> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:06:18 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <>;
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:43:37AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i feel strongly.  it's always been namedroppers.  before there was an
> > ietf in its current, there was a namedroppers mailing list.  if ietf
> > doesn't want to run the namedroppers mailing list (by that name) others
> > should so offer.
> Would it be acceptable to have a alias, or is it
> necessary to create the list under the name and
> have an alias from

it's my preference that it be called by its eternal name ("namedroppers@"),
and that no new name (such as "dnsext@") be created, and so, no aliases.

> If the latter, does anyone want to address Bill Manning's point that,
> given that namedroppers has not always been the address for _this working
> group's_ mailing list, reusing that list name for this WG might be
> confusing?

dnsind and dnsext have always used "namedroppers@".  i think bill's point
was that "namedroppers@" predates these working groups and indeed was once
used ("";) to discuss non-DNS naming systems.  i'm uncompelled
by this argument.  when the internet community has discussed naming at the
protocol level, they've always called the forum "namedroppers@", and i sort
of like it like that.  but, i fibbed before.  i feel moderately about it,
not strongly.