> On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following:
> >> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
> > I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed
> > bypass
> > of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist.
> So it seems to me that you've failed to see the problem.
> Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
> bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering.
I see nothing in the requirements that says this supposed to be possible as a
unilateral action on the part of the poster. That's clearly preposterous - it
should go without saying that whitelisting arrangements are just that:
Arrangements. The requirements leave open how such arrangements are made; IMO
that's entirely appropriate.
> This would also
> include a spammer who considers himself a valid poster. At the same time,
> the IETF lists MUST provide spam control. I see this as a contradiction in
> the announced text.
Only if you engage in a VERY creative reading of what's there.
> In other words, if one is not already on a whitelist, how does one get on
> to it, automatically, without moderation and challenge-response, while
> spam-filtering is still provided?
And there's that word "automatically". There is nothing in the text that says
such arrangements have to be automatic.
Ned
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
