Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
- in the current situation, even postings from occasional posters are being blocked. and when postings are blocked, the message is terse and cryptic (even insulting) and contains no clue about how to workaround the problem Do you have specific recent examples of this? If it is the case it needs to be fixed. - getting on the approved posters list is not well documented or understood. for some list software this is a manual operation requiring the list admin to edit a file; on others it is under control of the subscriber but he/she has to subscribe the alternate address using some obscure option like /NOMAIL. Perhaps in the case of namedroppers the added [ post by non-subscriber... ] note can include the instructions on how to get added to that list. Erik
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
No I don't want random people sending stuff to a low volume list ( a couple messages a week is normal ) so I think asking people to subscribe is a low overhead task... I understand where you are coming from, but too many IETF working groups' output has suffered from lack of outside input. Certainly it's reasonable to expect frequent contributors to at least get on an allowed posters list, but it's not reasonable to exclude occasional input from others. Keith
RE: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
I don't know about others, but I use the IETF mailing list service to manage the list. If you want to send a message all it takes is a subscribe, but please don't send me any e-mails... Very easy to do with a Webpage... This only guarantees that I won't see your mail and possibly make a mistake, hopefully I don't make too many mistakes, but I am human Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Keith Moore'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued No I don't want random people sending stuff to a low volume list ( a couple messages a week is normal ) so I think asking people to subscribe is a low overhead task... I understand where you are coming from, but too many IETF working groups' output has suffered from lack of outside input. Certainly it's reasonable to expect frequent contributors to at least get on an allowed posters list, but it's not reasonable to exclude occasional input from others. Keith
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
In article mit.lcs.mail.ietf/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Neither is echo subscribe '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' | mail namedroppers-request at ops.ietf.org Not a useful answer. There is a reason why the address from which I am sending this message is not the one to which I am subscribed. (If this reason is not obvious, look at the headers.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of [EMAIL PROTECTED] | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty- Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST), Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Randy As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists for Randy several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a Randy requirement. The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte Randy or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes Randy keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition. I think the proper solution here is to use proper tools rather than to impose another burden on the list administrators. Mailing management has come a long way in the last few years. The easiest package I've seen for administrative purposes is probably the mailman package, which is being used by a very very wide range of Internet groups. As an example, all of the SourceForge mailing list software is managed by mailman. I strongly encourage the use of a more intuitive mail package like mailman. I've managed many mailing lists with it, ranging in size from a few people to 5000 and I must say that it makes administration easy. Moderated lists, or subscriber-only lists are more easily taken care of because list administrators just have to click on a button that says reject or accept or discard. The nice thing about the reject action is that it sends back text to the user saying what the problem was and how they can likely correct it. IE, the complaint that started this huge thread (dropped problems as opposed to a properly worded response going back) are generally taken care of by the software, not the administrator, which is important. It's so easy to use that my Dad can and does use it, who knows nothing about SMTP, sendmail, aliases, unix, postfix, ... I'm sure Randy Bush will have no trouble with it. It's only disadvantage is that it's heavily web based, which will probably make a few people groan. However, it would be rather trivial to write a mail-based, script-based, or other wrapper around it if that was the only problem with it. IMHO, it's long past the time that the IETF should have a centralized mail management system where lists can be (not forced to be, of course) centrally created and yet still managed by individual list authors. The ops area has been doing this for a while, but I think it makes sense for the main organization to host this instead if possible (yes, I do realize that a server and bandwidth would have to be donated to the cause). It's all the small administrative issues like this that detract us from real work on real protocols. Let's fix this at the global level, please. Sourceforge hosts 51,700 projects most of which have multiple mailing lists associated with them. We should learn from their experiences. -- Wes Hardaker Network Associates Laboratories
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
The list moderator asked him to add his email address to the list, and indicated that as a result of doing so his mail would be unmoderated. Is it so hard to do? frankly, it's ridiculous to expect people to subscribe to every list to which they wish to contribute. for example, if there were a working group trying to break IPv4 so that simple unauthenticated IPv4-enabled light switches could exist, it would be quite reasonable for people outside that group to want to make comments to that group to discourage them from breaking IP or apps that use IP. those outside contributors should not have to be subjected to mail about how great it will be when those apps are broken but we have IP-enabled light switches. Keith p.s. yes this group does exist, and their documents are before the IESG.
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
I am not on the ietf or iesg list. I don't know if this will go through to those lists. While DJB may also have some subscription issue, that is not the fundamental problem. It seems from your comments below, that you think that Randy isn't manually blocking/forwarding messages from subscribed addresses. However, that it not true. The real problem is that Randy sometimes don't post messages from people he doesn't like or on topics he has an interest in, even when they are posted from subscribed addresses. This has happened to me several times. One of the occasions where it happened to me is documented on Bernstein's web page. It has probably happened many more times that haven't made it on DJB's webpage. There seems to be no reason that Randy should set himself up as a moderator, or any reason whatsoever there should be any manual intervention on posting from subscribed addresses. Do you agree? --Dean On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: On 27 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote: [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts. your subscription address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], please post from it or fix subscription your subscription address! ] Once again: Bush is (1) subjecting a huge number of legitimate messages to manual review and (2) silently discarding many of these legitimate messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine). All you need to do is ONE of the following: Use the same subcription address and posting address Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters list. Both #1 and #2 are unacceptable. I want the manual reviews _eliminated_. If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention. The ONLY reason there is manual review is because you are not addhearing to the protocol for posting to the mailing list. If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed. Send text. Olafur -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:50:07PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: There seems to be no reason that Randy should set himself up as a moderator, or any reason whatsoever there should be any manual intervention on posting from subscribed addresses. Do you agree? The lack of transparency smacks of impropriety. I see this list well served with some moderation. I do not see it benefit from unfettered solo activity with no external checks and balances. 'Trust me' does not apply here. To resolve this I suggest a page with any articles that have been refused for whatever reason. Randy? Regards, bert -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Software Services http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing Traffic Control HOWTO
RE: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Dan, sounds like a plan. I say all messages from Bernstein be handled via his option #2 Can we please BOUNCE all of Dr. Bernsteins email with the correct procedure, in the bounce message, on how to subscribe and be a participating member of the list instead of bitching and wasting time. If you have specific complaints about the List Manager then forward them, in private, to the NomCom. This list is NOT the place for this bitch fest. Now lets get back to something more important like arguing over DNS SEC. ;) Jeesh, what a waste... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of D. J. Bernstein Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 4:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts. your subscription address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], please post from it or fix subscription your subscription address! ] Olafur Gudmundsson writes: Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters list. Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to set them up as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY DISCARDED. (Misdirecting them to some obscure web page would have essentially the same effect.) You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a whole bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have also been listed as coming from non-subscribers. How many more messages have been lost--- or deliberately thrown away by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED! As for my own sender address [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bush has already taken manual action---but what he did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription address on top of all my messages to the list---shortly after I had informed him that I kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge unsubscription requests. I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately explained by stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by hand in the first place. The only acceptable ways to process a message to a standardization mailing list are (1) to immediately pass it through unchanged to the subscribers or (2) to immediately bounce it. The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective standards. The bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain the standards. The standards must allow the sender to straightforwardly arrange for #1. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/
apology (re namedroppers mismanagement)
Folks, I owe Randy Bush an apology. I saw Dan's complaint about Randy telling him to post from a subscriber address, and assumed that Randy was still routinely bouncing messages from non-subscribers with a cryptic message. Yes, he used to do that. But in more recent times, I've seen several occasions where Randy forwarded messages from non-subscribers to lists, and I have every reason to believe that he's changed his policy to one that I would consider acceptable. I honestly don't know why I didn't remember this earlier, and I really cannot offer any excuse for my rants about Randy's current handling of non-subscriber email. I now consider them baseless, and ask you to ignore them. And I sincerely regret sending them. Keith
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
IMHO, it's long past the time that the IETF should have a centralized mail management system where lists can be (not forced to be, of course) centrally created and yet still managed by individual list authors. yup - and its been the case for quite a while Scott
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valdis.Kletni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:23 PST, Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] sai d: ICANN stands alone in its EXCLUSIVNESS, while arguing that there must only be one root. All others must die! Think .BIZ. Now go back and *CAREFULLY* re-read RFC 2826. Note that nowhere does it say that ICANN has to be the root. What it says is either you have one centrally coordinated root, or you have Balkanization. This is precisely the point. It doesn't matter who selects the TLDs; all that matters is that there be a consistent set. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (Firewalls book)
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Thus spake Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] [cc's trimmed] Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? 1. Many WG lists themselves aren't archived, but you want to force bounced messages to be? Are you ready to pay for this? 2. The volume of spam in a bounced-messages archive would quickly change your mind. 3. All of this would be easily solved by someone (e.g. IETF secretariat) providing list service for all WGs with a consistent policy. S
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
It doesn't matter who selects the TLDs; all that matters is that there be a consistent set. Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. Keith
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
On 18:09 29/11/02, Steven M. Bellovin said: This is precisely the point. It doesn't matter who selects the TLDs; all that matters is that there be a consistent set. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (Firewalls book) ICANN ICP-3 even goes to the extent to explain how a non-profit, harmless, temporary experimentation by the global community could lead to a root-management by multiple organizations instead of ICANN. On 18:47 29/11/02, Keith Moore said: Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. That is also what is to experiment. Local TLDs are probably not going to be an as big burden as professional TLDs. This is why to be relevant technical, societal and political experimentations must be carried together. jfc
Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
Thus spake Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't moderating the list randy's perogative as WG chair? excluding relevant input is not the perogatie of the chair. I've seen no claims to date that Randy has dropped any posts from anyone who has followed the documented process. If DJB refuses to follow the opt-in policy for namedroppers, it is not the IETF/IESG's problem -- it's DJB's. I think it was an error in Randy's judgement for him to have manually forwarded some of DJB's posts; he should have dropped them all until DJB chose to follow the process like everyone else on namedroppers. S
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote: It doesn't matter who selects the TLDs; all that matters is that there be a consistent set. Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. That's old fiction. If it works for .com it will work for .. I don't see much in the way of difficulties here. regards joe baptista
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote: Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. That's old fiction. If it works for .com it will work for .. well, it's not clear that it works well for .com. try measuring delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples sometime, and also cache effectiveness. let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. I just can't buy the argument. The root won't break. .com works fine - so would the root. The only issue would be vulnerability - if the roots were under attack and the . file was as large as the .com zone - then i would imgine there would be a significant problem. These same vulnerability issues exist for the .com zone everyday. It's a very vulnerable namespace to attack. Thats about the only significant problem i see to a . file being as large as .com. regards joe baptista
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
well, it's not clear that it works well for .com. try measuring delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples sometime, and also cache effectiveness. I guess the burden of proof is on those who argue that it doesn _not_ work well. The burden of proof is on those who want to change the status quo. FWIW, I'm doing these experiments myself, and will publish the results when I'm done in such a way that others should be able to repeat the experiments, compare their results with mine, and form their own conclusions. Of course whether DNS currently works well is subjective. But there's a tendency to think of it as working well simply because we are accustomed to that level of service. let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. Since .com was running _on_ the root-servers.net until recently without problems, what are we talking about? Naturally there won't be 1 million TLDs all at once. We could start with a couple of hundreds. That would merely double the size of the root. It's not just the size of the root that matters - the distribution of usage (and thus locality of reference) also matters. The point is that if removing constraints on the root causes problems (and there are reasons to believe that it will) we can't easily go back to the way things were before. Keith
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. I just can't buy the argument. The root won't break. forgive me if I don't think that we should take your word for it.
namedroppers, continued
Bush stuck the following note into the top of my latest message to namedroppers: [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. your subscription address is [EMAIL PROTECTED], please post from it or, if you wish to regularly post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask to have the alternate address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are automatically accepted. ] Okay, Bush: Put [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the list of addresses from which submissions are automatically accepted. Furthermore: Stop publishing private subscription addresses. This includes malicious actions by the list owner, accidents by the list owner, failure to configure the mailing-list software to keep subscription addresses private, etc. Furthermore: When you want to say something to a sender, say it in an immediate bounce message to that sender (which in this case would have been [EMAIL PROTECTED]), not in a stupid editorial note on the top of the sender's message to the list. You're perfectly aware that many senders don't read messages to the list. Furthermore: Stop delaying messages. The delay is unacceptable. The excuse for the delay, namely manual review, is also unacceptable. Under United States antitrust law, standard-setting procedures must ``prevent the standard-setting process from being biased by members with economic interests in stifling product competition''; your reviews plainly flunk this test. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Re: namedroppers, continued
D. J. Bernstein wrote: Bush stuck the following note into the top of my latest message to namedroppers: ... You're perfectly aware that many senders don't read messages to the list. ... Yet - you must be reading the list or you would not have seen it. Please cry elsewhere. -- Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com ---|- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Office: (208)612-INET http://Royer.com/People/Doug |Fax: (866)594-8574 | Cell: (208)520-4044 We Do Standards - You Need Standards smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did NotTell You)
OK, we now have several words used for suposedly the same thing. 1) ONE MONOPOLY ROOT OWNED and CONTROLLED BY ICANN; making all decisions and leasing out TLD and lower domain name holder-ships, which supposedly yields ONE SINGE ROOT controlled by ICANN. Also provides a pseudo-legal court system (UDRP) for adjudicating holder disputes below the ICANNIC root. Any domain names in use outside this construct are declared to be operated by PIRATE and Dishonest parties, whether they existed before ICANN came into existence or not, and even when created by Jon Postel pre-ICANN. 2) A Consistent Set of TLDs which do not include any collisions, and hopefully also do not endure any colliding domain names outside this Consistent Set. How the collisions are avoided apparently assumes some kind of communications system that is used for coordinating the introductions of new domain names to avoid introducing any and all collisions. 3) A Centrally Coordinated Root that entails some kind of communications system that is used for coordinating the introductions of new domain names to avoid introducing any and all collisions. I can see some equivalence between 2 and 3, both of which can be seen to achieve the desired result of a collision free root and thus a collision free DNS name tree, if this same coordination responsibility is attached to all delegations under the root. but, I see no justification for creation of a monopolistic single point of failure with the unilateral unquestioned power to unilaterally set many kinds of policies regarding registration business models and use rules for DNS names. Please explain how you see these relationships. Cheers...\Stef At 12:09 PM -0500 11/29/02, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valdis.Kletni [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:45:23 PST, Einar Stefferud [EMAIL PROTECTED] sai d: ICANN stands alone in its EXCLUSIVNESS, while arguing that there must only be one root. All others must die! Think .BIZ. Now go back and *CAREFULLY* re-read RFC 2826. Note that nowhere does it say that ICANN has to be the root. What it says is either you have one centrally coordinated root, or you have Balkanization. This is precisely the point. It doesn't matter who selects the TLDs; all that matters is that there be a consistent set. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (Firewalls book)
RE: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
Hello Keith: Well, it also matters that the set be constrained to some degree. A large flat root would not be very managable, and caches wouldn't be very effective with large numbers of TLDs. That's old fiction. If it works for .com it will work for .. well, it's not clear that it works well for .com. try measuring delay and reliability of queries for a large number of samples sometime, and also cache effectiveness. let's put it another way. under the current organization if .com breaks the other TLDs will still work. if we break the root, everything fails. Quick Question: Regarding Many TLDs vs. Fewer TLDs... If when .com breaks, the other TLDs still work... then, isn't that a good reason to have more TLDs? If you have millions of domains, across 1000s of TLDs, and, when one TLD goes down, then, doesn't it appear likely (statistically) that less domains would be effected in the event of such a problem? Regards, Mark
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
It's not just the size of the root that matters - the distribution of usage (and thus locality of reference) also matters. For those in databases: What runs more smoothly: a few subgroups in a main group with millions of records, or a few thousand subgroups with thousands of records? while you are asking questions, you might as well ask others: which scales better? which is more failure-tolerant? The point is that if removing constraints on the root causes problems (and there are reasons to believe that it will) we can't easily go back to the way things were before. Sure, call it a testbed, like the IDN-testbed of VeriSign. please don't use VeriSign's abuse of DNS to justify further abuse. Keith
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
If when .com breaks, the other TLDs still work... then, isn't that a good reason to have more TLDs? it's a good reason to not put all of your eggs in one basket. also by limiting the size of the root we make it somewhat easier to verify that the root is working correctly. Keith
Re: new.net (was: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You)
First target: twice as many as now. why? how will that improve life on the internet?
Re: namedroppers, continued
Keith claims that allowing ``contributions from outsiders'' requires delay and manual review. That claim is absurd. Immediately bounce the message to the ``outsider,'' with instructions explaining how to have the message sent to subscribers; end of problem. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
RE: namedroppers, continued
Silly question, But you DO know what it will take to get your message to be immediately seen by the list, you just aren't willing to do it... I believe the problem is in your court, easily solved and it is not time to move on to something that might be slightly productive Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of D. J. Bernstein Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued Keith claims that allowing ``contributions from outsiders'' requires delay and manual review. That claim is absurd. Immediately bounce the message to the ``outsider,'' with instructions explaining how to have the message sent to subscribers; end of problem. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Re: namedroppers, continued
Keith claims that allowing ``contributions from outsiders'' requires delay and manual review. That claim is absurd. Immediately bounce the message to the ``outsider,'' with instructions explaining how to have the message sent to subscribers; end of problem. Well, as long as the method for getting the message to the subscribers (a) is simple and not onerous, and (b) cannot be automated then I'd probably agree that this is an acceptable solution. I've seen lists for which the way that this was accomplished - subscribing or getting on the acceptable posters list - involved several email round-trips to get the address of the list bot, get the help file, send a command, get back a cookie, send back the cookie, find out that the list bot won't accept subscribe requests and/or cookies from a different address than that for which the subscription is requested, etc. Basically it amounted to a considerable barrier to posting by outsiders. These days, with a web interface, that level of complexity is no longer necessary. But if you make the process automatable spammers _will_ game it. Keith
trying to sweep namedroppers mismanagement under the rug
Bill Strahm writes: I believe the problem is in your court That's patently absurd. It's not _my_ fault that a bunch of messages from _other_ people are being silently discarded. (As I said before, there have been more than 100 messages in the past three months on namedroppers labelled as coming from non-subscribers, only a small fraction of those being mine. Furthermore, Bush has silently discarded several of my recent messages. If we believe Bush's claim that he isn't selectively targeting my messages, the only reasonable conclusion is that he has silently discarded a huge number of messages overall, only a small fraction being mine.) Most namedroppers contributors who don't post from subscription addresses are, presumably, people who don't watch the list at all---for example, people from other lists involved in cross-posted discussions. How are they supposed to find out about the problem? I do tend to watch the list. I noticed the problem. I pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm the only person with the problem. If the problem is fixed _for me_, but not _for everybody_, then it hasn't gone away. The procedures are still broken. Legitimate messages to namedroppers---potentially quite valuable messages---continue to be thrown away. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
Re: trying to sweep namedroppers mismanagement under the rug
There is a process to have messages posted immediately, if what is being said is important and time critical, follow it. If it is not worth even the small amount of effort to do this, you probably do not have anything so incredibly important to say that it cannot wait. Personally, I thank the people who take the time to filter the list and keep it free of spam, it wastes the time of the subscribers to get these unwanted messages and, some of us (I suspect the vast majority) would rather not get them. If you are going to make an accusation of censorship, do so, but do not do so lightly. If you are not, then there really is no point to these messages, as it is unfortunate if a few messages are lost but, the alternative to not filtering the list is worse. That being said, I do find the examples you linked to in the original message interesting. Has anybody else experienced these problems? I especially find the earlier ones questionable as there should be no reason to edit an incoming message. -Daniel Pelstring - Original Message - From: D. J. Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:01 PM Subject: trying to sweep namedroppers mismanagement under the rug Bill Strahm writes: I believe the problem is in your court That's patently absurd. It's not _my_ fault that a bunch of messages from _other_ people are being silently discarded. (As I said before, there have been more than 100 messages in the past three months on namedroppers labelled as coming from non-subscribers, only a small fraction of those being mine. Furthermore, Bush has silently discarded several of my recent messages. If we believe Bush's claim that he isn't selectively targeting my messages, the only reasonable conclusion is that he has silently discarded a huge number of messages overall, only a small fraction being mine.) Most namedroppers contributors who don't post from subscription addresses are, presumably, people who don't watch the list at all---for example, people from other lists involved in cross-posted discussions. How are they supposed to find out about the problem? I do tend to watch the list. I noticed the problem. I pointed it out. That doesn't mean I'm the only person with the problem. If the problem is fixed _for me_, but not _for everybody_, then it hasn't gone away. The procedures are still broken. Legitimate messages to namedroppers---potentially quite valuable messages---continue to be thrown away. ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
