Miss Betsy Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 I thought we had settled those issues. My Original concept was to have a short paragraph with links to the longer articles that sys admins would understand. However, due to the 'anal' quality of the technically fluent, more and more information has been added to the 'people who operate servers' so that the next section can't be seen without scrolling. I thought by adding the line about 'there is another section for end users following' helped the situation. If we actually had two entries, you know that people would read the wrong one and then complain about it being over their head or having no useful information! Also, if the person is running a server, s/he needs to know what kind of language is used among his peers. For instance, there is a difference between what the auto mechanic says to his helper and what he says to his customer though it may convey exactly the same information. Though many people think that the way sys admins talk to each other is rude, they seem to understand one another. So, I have no objection to stronger language in the server section. (and I don't think it hurts the end users to see it - one should always have their horizons broadened - as long as the section that belongs to them is 'customerese'). Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 It is clear from this thread that we may want to revisit an FAQ on deffinition of terms. Maybe one that lists the sys admin lingo next to that used by the endusers, pointing to some misconceptions and misunderstanding resulting from <<misuse>> of terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsdaddict Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Just wanted to drop in and say that I'm glad that something good has come of this thread. Anything that can be done to make the documentation/FAQs more technically precise will be much appreciated by sysadmins who find themselves in a similar situation. Also, if any end-users can glean any new knowledge from the increased accuracy of terminology, even better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 One thing that I had not thought about before this discussion, perhaps we should have the end user text at the beginning with the note redirecting the sysadmins. I think the majority of sysadmins would be more willing to "page down" to find the more detailed information, starting simple for the end users and getting more detailed for the experienced. We all know there are some sysadmins out there who were given their jobs because they "knew about computers" but have no other experience. THis would help those sysadmins learn gradually as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yes, I had thought of that also. It is kind of six to one, half a dozen to the other. Since it seems as though the forum gets more questions from sys admins than end users lately, it could be that the way it is, is working. The main problem for the posts that are about blocking is lack of 'evidence' so possibly a number of them are finding out what they want to know from the FAQ also. OTOH, Ellen says that she gets more email from end users. Perhaps they don't read far enough to get the advice to talk to their ISP. And the email address should go in one of the server links or at the bottom of the end user section. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I agree with StevenUnderwood that putting the end user information at the top would make it more friendly for the end users. A simple statement like "The simple explanation below is followed by a more complex technical explanation" can be very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Much later - 66.216.65.160/27 (66.216.65.160 - 66.216.65.191) is still allocated to Glen Group but apparently no e-mail transits that block, sadly it seems they found it necessary to migrate that part of the business elsewhere. If spam ever did come from there, reports would still (probably) go to abuse[at]rackspace.com (for 66.216.64.0/18), abuse[at]glengroup.com (for glengroup.com) IS set up in abuse.net but the OrgAbuseEmail for that /27 in ARIN WHOIS data is nobody[at]example.com (for any/all Glen Group contact in that bloc actually) which doesn't currently matter since nothing externally discernible of any sort appears to be happening within the /27. Which might indicate the proper/intended use for nobody[at]example.com addresses in ARIN data which have been seen elsewhere, causing wonderment and consternation - especially when it related to spam sources (but that was not from Glen Group netspace that I can recall - and blessed if I can find the reports by forum search on "example.com" keyword now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.