Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Harald Alvestrand]

--On fredag, oktober 26, 2001 11:51:16 -0400 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
> I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
> talking about Jim has been generating? BLB

actually, this thread, which I read as being about whether or not the 
clauses of RFC 3005 should ever be invoked or not, is relevant to the IETF.

At the moment, I have Anthony Atkielski against, and everyone else for.
I take it that the community upholds the rough consensus of RFC 3005.

(Note: I also read the discussion as showing that the community feels that 
the subject of censoring the list is a tricky one, and that we do NOT feel 
that the RFC 3005 provisions should be invoked lightly. This is a Good 
Thing.)

  Harald

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Thomas Dineen]

Gentle People:

   Pleeease stop this thread.

   I am under the impression that this reflector was intended
for the discussion of the standardization of Internet Protocols.

   Please limit its use to this topic only.

Thomas Dineen



- Original Message -
From: "RJ Auburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked


> On 26 Oct 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > RJ Auburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
> > > > Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > > > > I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
> > > > > opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
> > > > > of luck, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
> > > > I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.
> > >
> > > For the rest of his life :-)
> >
> > That's not true. After I specifically blocked his ability to talk to
> > my SMTP server he eventually stopped CCing me on mail messages. The
> > logs indicate it took him about six months to pay attention to the
> > bounce messages.
>
> There is always that way to fix the problem :-)
>
> RJ
> --
> RJ Auburn
> Chief Network Architect
> Voxeo Corporation
>
> Bring your web application to the phone for free.
> Find out how at http://community.voxeo.com
>
>

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Perry E. Metzger]

RJ Auburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
> > Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > > I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
> > > opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
> > > of luck, eh?
> >
> > Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
> > I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.
>
> For the rest of his life :-)

That's not true. After I specifically blocked his ability to talk to
my SMTP server he eventually stopped CCing me on mail messages. The
logs indicate it took him about six months to pay attention to the
bounce messages.

Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[RJ Auburn]

On 26 Oct 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> RJ Auburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
> > > Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > > > I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
> > > > opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
> > > > of luck, eh?
> > >
> > > Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
> > > I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.
> >
> > For the rest of his life :-)
>
> That's not true. After I specifically blocked his ability to talk to
> my SMTP server he eventually stopped CCing me on mail messages. The
> logs indicate it took him about six months to pay attention to the
> bounce messages.

There is always that way to fix the problem :-)

RJ
--
RJ Auburn
Chief Network Architect
Voxeo Corporation

Bring your web application to the phone for free.
Find out how at http://community.voxeo.com

Re: offlist Re: Two things bothering me (was Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked)

[grenville armitage]

Lillian,

I took the ietf list off the cc line of my response to you.
It is poor ettiquette, and not a little hypocritical, to put
*back* on the ietf list a discussion thread whose very existence
you just complained about.

I apologise to the entire list for Lillian's behavior.

gja

RE: offlist Re: Two things bothering me (was Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked)

[Lillian Komlossy]

Notes and comments below.

Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com ||
http://www.imarketingnews.com || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 ||
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: grenville armitage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 2:33 PM
To: Lillian Komlossy
Subject: offlist Re: Two things bothering me (was Re: Jim Fleming's
posting privilleges have been revoked)



>>Some of us give thanks for our freedoms by continuing
>>to defend our rights, including the right to engage in
>>discussion of, and defense of, curtailing the posting
>>activities of long-time trolls.

-->comment: defending your rights can be done with respect - I don't see a
lot of that going on here lately.

>>If you haven't been around the IETF long enough to know
>>Jim Fleming, please don't belittle those of us who have
>>actually had enough of him.

-->comment: My remarks were meant to be constructive and not intended to
belittle any one. I'm sure you did not mean to be patronise or belittle me
either when you 'classified' me as someone who has not been around the IETF
long enough? Without knowing anything about me except my name and gender of
course? I, as many other Americans, have just recently been reminded of what
is really important. If your remarks are constructive, calm and not
delivered from a high horse then you offered the respect you wish to be
treated with. I hope I did this in my original letter.

>>"Why can't we all just get along" ?  Because getting along
>>sometimes involve repairing fences. And fences are rarely
>>un-controversial.

-->comment: True but again you can do it different ways. And again, you do
it with a cliche - if I wanted to be offended by that, feeling 'belittled' I
could. I never said 'Why can't we all just get along?'

I have been enjoying and learning from many threads and debates on this list
and most of those threads were all written in a respectful, witty, and
constructive way. And they are achieving a lot more than just 'mending
fences'. 

I suggest again - respectfully - to drop this thread and move on to more
constructive issues. This will give everyone the best idea of what this list
is all about and what the topic is. 

God Bless All,
Lillian












gja

Lillian Komlossy wrote:
> 
> 1. You have revoked his privileges but have not stopped this controversial
> and inflammatory e-mail thread about him. Draw your own conclusions why
this
> is wrong.
> 
> 2. I am looking out my office window onto a place where two towers stood,
> breathing smoldering rubble for over a Month and some of you are
complaining
> that you are inconvenienced. Folks all this is minor, not worth getting
into
> it. Jim's privileges were restricted for a period of time, let it be,
leave
> it alone - let everyone (including Jim) draw their own conclusions about
it.
> Respect this by not mentioning it. There is a lot of work to do, you're
all
> here, give thanks and get back to work.
> 
> God Bless All,
> 
> Lillian
> 
> Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com ||
> http://www.imarketingnews.com || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 ||
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Steve Ellis]

Would it be too terribly much trouble to STOP TALKING ABOUT JIM FLEMING?

I've already filtered out any messages either from or addressed to him, I'd
rather not filter out messages that mention him in the subject line (or
worse yet, from the message body).  I am completely uninterested in anything
he has to say, or anything anyone else has to say about him.  Please don't
continue to lower the quality of discussion in this forum by continuing this
thread.

My apologies to the dozens (hundreds???) of other people on this list who
don't want to see my message either--I promise that this will be my only
message on this topic--I will not respond via the list to any responses.

-se

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:40 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
> 
> 
> > then how can you be certain that they don't
> > interest you?
> 
> I read the thread for a while.  If it ceases to interest me, 
> I stop reading it.
> Occasionally it moves back to something interesting and I 
> miss it, but usually
> not.  I note that once a thread has drifted from the nominal 
> topic, it tends
> never to return.
> 
> > in other words, you admit that you're completely
> > unqualified to hold an opinion on those messages ...
> 
> One need not have "qualifications" (whatever those are) in 
> order to hold an
> opinion.
> 
> 
> 

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Pete Resnick]

On 10/26/01 at 7:23 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>So, the question for you to answer is, "Are Jim's posts within the 
>charter of the IETF general mailing list (even viewing them in the 
>most favorable light)?"
>
>I don't know.

An interesting response. A large number of us, using our best 
judgement, determined that they are not within the charter and 
therefore agree with his exclusion. One of the few people (yourself) 
who objects to his exclusion isn't sure whether they are within the 
charter. Seems to me that our consensus is that he is outside of the 
charter.

>Do you have an algorithm that you can run against the text of his 
>messages to determine this objectively and unambiguously?

Unfortunately (or fortunately), natural language is not likely the 
kind of stuff you can run through an algorithm for the meanings of 
its contents. Human analysis is required. Lots of people have 
presented their analysis of the situation. So again I ask: Do you 
think that his posts are reasonably within the scope and charter of 
this mailing list? If you're unwilling to explain why they are, I see 
no point in continuing to discuss this.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> then how can you be certain that they don't
> interest you?

I read the thread for a while.  If it ceases to interest me, I stop reading it.
Occasionally it moves back to something interesting and I miss it, but usually
not.  I note that once a thread has drifted from the nominal topic, it tends
never to return.

> in other words, you admit that you're completely
> unqualified to hold an opinion on those messages ...

One need not have "qualifications" (whatever those are) in order to hold an
opinion.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> So why even bother chartering Usenet groups
> (lists, whatever), then?

I don't know ... why?  The only thing that ever seems to influence the content
of a newsgroup is its name.  I don't know if anyone reads the charters.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> If a widely-distributed MUA is requiring the text/plain
> part to be manually opened, that needs to be checked
> into.  Maybe a 'Content-Disposition: inline' is needed
> on the text/plain.

I'm using Outlook Express 5.5, with PGP 7.0.3 extensions installed.  Both the
message text and the signature appear as (separate) attachments.  I don't know
why, exactly.  I've received signed messages from other PGP users, and they
appear normally.

Two things bothering me (was Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked)

[Lillian Komlossy]

1. You have revoked his privileges but have not stopped this controversial
and inflammatory e-mail thread about him. Draw your own conclusions why this
is wrong.

2. I am looking out my office window onto a place where two towers stood,
breathing smoldering rubble for over a Month and some of you are complaining
that you are inconvenienced. Folks all this is minor, not worth getting into
it. Jim's privileges were restricted for a period of time, let it be, leave
it alone - let everyone (including Jim) draw their own conclusions about it.
Respect this by not mentioning it. There is a lot of work to do, you're all
here, give thanks and get back to work.

God Bless All,

Lillian


Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com ||
http://www.imarketingnews.com || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 ||
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Vernon Schryver]

> It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
> I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
> talking about Jim has been generating? BLB

Statements like that should generate flames in these circumstances, because
if they are not an old slogan and misrepresentation of the situation, they
are based on too little information to justify their publication.

All of us who have been around enough to have standing to speak on
the subject know that this burst of noise about siliencing Mr. Fleming
was inevitable.  This burst will run its course and be finished within
another 36 hours, with some stragglers over the next several days.
We also know that that Mr. Fleming would have continued his noise
indefinitely.  His streams of noise exceed the bursts noise that happen
when he is temporarily silenced if you let him continue long enough.
Moreover, the noise from Mr. Fleming incites and justifies garbage
from others.  The choice is between these finite bursts of noise and
infinite noise from Mr. Fleming.

That observation and that by my count this is the third time that he
has been sanctioned imply that this ban should be made permanent.

So please permanently revoke Mr. Fleming's privileges.  That will
not only stop his noise, but also prevent future bursts of noise about
temporarily stopping his noise.


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> So, the question for you to answer is, "Are Jim's
> posts within the charter of the IETF general mailing
> list (even viewing them in the most favorable light)?"

I don't know.  Do you have an algorithm that you can run against the text of his
messages to determine this objectively and unambiguously?

ROFL Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[grenville armitage]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
[..]
> We'd all prefer that the Internet be optimized to carry only the traffic that we
> want to see, but as I've pointed out above, that's not practical.

Fortunately, the scope of the current problem is a mailing
list, and the solution only has to scale to the level of a
mailing list. Such optimizations occur all the time.

But you knew that.

gja (who thinks anthony should set up the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if he really believes what he's saying)

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia]

"From Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America"
 by Gerry Spence
(Internet Special Edition co-authored by Jim Framing)

=)

Best Regards.
jmag

> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
>
>
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=first+they+came+for
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot Mr. Alvestrand...
> > I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciate this!
> >
> > =)
> >
> > Saludos.
> > Regards.
> > _
> > José Manuel Arronte García
> > Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk
> >
> > Meg@Red Veracruz
> > Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento S. A. de C. V.
> > Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A
> > Fracc. Moderno 91916
> > Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO
> >
> > +52 (2) 923-0400, 923-0410
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.megacable.com.mx
> > http://www.megared.net.mx
> >
> > _____
> > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
> >  and I'm not sure about the former".--A. Einstein
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:20 PM
> > Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
> >
> >
> > > After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list
after
> > > having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting
> > > privilleges to the IETF list.
> > >
> > > This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
> > >
> > > Harald T. Alvestrand
> > >  IETF Chair
> >

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
talking about Jim has been generating? BLB


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:36:00 -0400

>
>
>Don't you think a discussion on not having a discussion is off topic?
>
>-- 
>James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA

RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Hal Duncan]

So why even bother chartering Usenet groups (lists, whatever), then?

Let's just throw away the thousands of groups/lists that have different
topics and have one, big (BIG) mailing list with everyone on the Net on it.
Talking about whatever they want to talk about.  Won't that be fun?

Look, it's really simple.  Groups/lists have topics.  Charters are written
to define, as best as possible, the limits of those topics.  Unmoderated
groups attempt to enforce their charters with peer pressure.  Moderated
groups do not have to resort to that -- the chosen moderator has the power
to enforce the charter.

Nobody has the "right" to be on any particular list.  Like someone else
said, this ain't the open microphone in the town square.  If you want to
hear rants, go look for alt.rants.  It's probably there.

Hal

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Anthony Atkielski
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
>
>
> > I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> > who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> > it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> > people on the list.
>
> That's what killfiles and filters are for.
>
> I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those
> opinions are.
> I don't see why the world must be censored at the source just to meet your
> standards of what you do and don't want to see.  And claiming to
> represent the
> majority is irrelevant, even if it is true (and I'm not convinced
> of that),
> because it is technologically quite possible for each person to
> censor his own
> mail at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the
> source, unless
> your real objective be to prevent _others_ from reading anything
> of which _you_
> do not approve.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:48:59 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> > Many of us still often connect by slow lines
> > when on travel, and can only filter in the
> > user agent.
> 
> Then you should limit the traffic that you solicit in your travel configuration.

So you're saying he shouldn't read his e-mail while travelling, because he
might get spammed by somebody who's been told repeatedly to cut it out? Even
though it's a mailing list that *most* traffic on it *is* solicited?

> Heck, I'd prefer that Valdis Kletnieks stop sending messages as text attachments
> to the list (does every one of his messages really need to be signed?), but
> occasionally I still open them to see what he has to say, and I've made no

Hmm... I wasn't aware that there are MUA's that manage to Do The Wrong Thing
with a text/plain part of a multipart/signed.  I would have expected the
text/plain part to be displayed inline, and it's the *signature* that usually
generates complaints, because it's an "application/pgp-signature", which should
be handled as an application/octet-stream.  If a widely-distributed MUA is
requiring the text/plain part to be manually opened, that needs to be checked
into.  Maybe a 'Content-Disposition: inline' is needed on the text/plain.


-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech



 PGP signature

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Pete Resnick]

On 10/26/01 at 4:43 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>>There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle 
>>mail filters just so you can continue to receive junk mail via a 
>>list where it doesn't belong.
>
>That depends on how you define junk mail.  If everyone does not 
>share the same definition, there is a problem.

Anthony, you have consistently avoiding answering the one real issue: 
Jim was excluded, according to Harald, because his posts are 
off-topic for the discussions of this list. Many of his posts are 
about political topics which are out-of-scope of the charter of this 
mailing list (it is supposed to be about "engineering" or internal 
process issues of the IETF), and the rest of his posts are about a 
"technology" which the IETF has already come to a consensus that they 
have rejected. He has been reminded multiple times that his posts are 
out-of-scope for the list and yet he refuses to stop making those 
kinds of posts. (There are, of course, other lists for which his 
posts are perfectly reasonable. I would feel that the same thing 
should be done to a person who decided to constantly posting cake 
recipes to the IETF list and those posts caused the same kind of 
disruption that Jim's do.)

So, the question for you to answer is, "Are Jim's posts within the 
charter of the IETF general mailing list (even viewing them in the 
most favorable light)?"

If you can explain to all of us how his posts are reasonably within 
the scope of discussion here, you might get a great deal of support 
for reconsideration of his exclusion. However, currently consensus of 
this list seems to be that his posts are wildly off-topic (if not 
simply flame-bait) and are interfering with the work of this list. I 
think it is therefore incumbent upon you or others who want his 
privileges reinstated to explain why his postings are in any way 
within the scope of this mailing list.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:43:22 +0200, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:

> That depends on how you define junk mail.  If everyone does not share the same
> definition, there is a problem.

That is true, as far as it goes.  However, in the IETF world, we seem to have
reached much more than "rough consensus" on the definition.

Let me propose a radical solution:  The IESG should charter an IPv8 working
group, and *all* IPv8 related discussions should happen there.  They are to
report back to the main IETF list when they have 2 interoperable implementations.

Remember, Queen Isabella *knew* it was 18,000 miles to China if you went west,
because she knew the world was 25K miles around (not the 12K Columbus claimed).
She gambled 3 leaky ships and a bunch of ex-convicts.

Who knows? We might be as surprised as Queen Isabella was
-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech


 PGP signature

Fw: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia]

I know this off the posting universe but...
Can anyone tell me the meaning of this?

Thanks a lot.
jmag


- Original Message -
From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked


> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=first+they+came+for
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
>
>
> Thanks a lot Mr. Alvestrand...
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciate this!
>
> =)
>
> Saludos.
> Regards.
> _
> José Manuel Arronte García
> Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk
>
> Meg@Red Veracruz
> Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento S. A. de C. V.
> Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A
> Fracc. Moderno 91916
> Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO
>
> +52 (2) 923-0400, 923-0410
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.megacable.com.mx
> http://www.megared.net.mx
>
> _
> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
>  and I'm not sure about the former".--A. Einstein
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:20 PM
> Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
>
>
> > After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after
> > having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting
> > privilleges to the IETF list.
> >
> > This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
> >
> > Harald T. Alvestrand
> >  IETF Chair
>

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Kevin Farley]

> > That's what killfiles and filters are for.
> 
> Yes.  And the filter is now in place.
> 

I just set a new filter to get rid of this thread. I can't take it
anymore.



__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> If you are interested in opinions no matter what
> they are then you won't mind if someone starts to
> randomly forward postings from any of the usenet
> newsgroups.

As long as it does not constitute a deliberate DoS attack or some other attempt
to overload, compromise, or bring down my system, I don't care.  I get junk mail
all day long; most of it is automatically directed into the trash.

> The question here is not whether or not someone
> has a right to voice their opinion, but whether
> or not they have a right to voice their opinion
> in this forum.

So which opinions are permitted in this forum, and which are not, and why?

> If this was a mailing list dedicated to earthworms
> and a posting on IPv8 was repeatedly sent to the
> list in various forms, you would have to agree that
> it would be inappropriate.

Yes, but I don't read messages that don't interest me.

Apparently this person has been sending many allegedly irrelevant messages to
the list.  I don't really know, however, because if they were not among the
minority of messages that interest me, I probably deleted them without reading
them.  It's a simple operation, really, with most e-mail programs.  To some
extent it can even be done automatically.

> The IETF mailing list is supposed to be used only
> for items which are of interest to the entire group
> of participants regardless of the working group
> they participate in.

There isn't anything on this list that is interesting to the _entire_ group of
persons reading it.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> Many of us still often connect by slow lines
> when on travel, and can only filter in the
> user agent.

Then you should limit the traffic that you solicit in your travel configuration.
Expecting the rest of the Internet to know that you are traveling and limit
traffic so that you are not inconvenienced is tremendously impractical, and
somewhat self-centered as well.

> I would much prefer that rantings and ravings be
> filtered at source rather than wasting time and
> money downloading them straight into the
> trash folder.

We'd all prefer that the Internet be optimized to carry only the traffic that we
want to see, but as I've pointed out above, that's not practical.

Heck, I'd prefer that Valdis Kletnieks stop sending messages as text attachments
to the list (does every one of his messages really need to be signed?), but
occasionally I still open them to see what he has to say, and I've made no
attempt to filter them, and certainly I haven't insisted that anyone censor them
at the source for my convenience.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> There's no reason everyone else should have to go
> install/fiddle mail filters just so you can continue
> to receive junk mail via a list where it doesn't belong.

That depends on how you define junk mail.  If everyone does not share the same
definition, there is a problem.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:45:22 +0200, TOMSON ERIC said:

> P.S.: it's a pity to observe that, whereas the majority of people
> agree on most topics, there is always some minority to claim that his
> opinion is more important, stating that "representing the majority is
> irrelevant". I'm afraid I consider such attitude as disrespectful.

Sometimes, the minority *is* more important.  That's why the ACLU always
ends up supporting unpopular causes.

However, even in these cases, the majority is *not* "irrelevant".  It is
merely outweighed, and there *is* a difference there

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech


 PGP signature

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Bruce Campbell]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote in reply to Paul Day:

> > I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> > who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> > it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> > people on the list.
>
> That's what killfiles and filters are for.

The [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list (IETF Discussion List) has certain policies
set upon it.  These are listed after my .signature block,
http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html and also in the 'info' that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] provides to you when you subscribed to the list.

Harald has acted in accordance with these policies.  If you think
otherwise, please first take the trouble to read all previous posts made
or mentioning Jim Fleming on the IETF lists.  The following Google links
will assist you:

Ignore any page mentioning Jim's IPv8
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fleming+-ipv8+site%3Aietf.org

Any page mentioning IPv8
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fleming+ipv8+site%3Aietf.org

David's Conrad summary on the individual ~3years ago.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Pre_Oct_1998/msg02068.html

Kind regards,

-- 
 Bruce CampbellRIPE
NCC
  I speak for myself, !employer



: The IETF discussion list serves two purposes. It furthers the
: development and specification of Internet technology through discussion
: of technical issues. It also hosts discussions of IETF direction,
: policy, and procedures. As this is the most general IETF mailing list,
: considerable latitude is allowed. Advertising, whether to solicit
: business or promote employment opportunities, falls well outside the
: range of acceptable topics, as do discussions of a personal nature.
:
:
: This list is meant for initial discussion only. Discussions that fall
: within the area of any working group or well established list should be
: moved to such more specific forum as soon as this is pointed out, unless
: the issue is one for which the working group needs wider input or
: direction.

: In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include:
:  Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions
:  Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work, but
:   do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue
:  Discussion of IETF administrative policies
:  Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings.
:
: Inappropriate postings include:
:  Unsolicited bulk e-mail
:  Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities,
:   or technical concerns
:  Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject.
:
: The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
: appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person or
: of a thread as they deem appropriate to limit abuse.  Complaints
: regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:00:51 EDT, Jeffrey Altman said:

> The IETF mailing list is supposed to be used only for items which are
> of interest to the entire group of participants regardless of the
> working group they participate in.  It would be inappropriate to
> discuss implementations or usage of IMAP or SSH on this list.  That is
> what the working group mailing lists are for.

On the other hand, "the IETF stance regarding law enforcement back doors in
crypto, as it affects SSH and SSL" would certainly be in-bounds for this
list.  And there's a certain amount of fuzziness (and there SHOULD be) whether
a given topic belongs here, or on the NANOG list, or both.

I'll admit to straying quite a bit myself at times - I'm not *quite* sure
that the nature of a CAVE or the challenges of teleconferencing are *strictly*
on-topic, but somebody asked.. ;)

But even I, for all my mental wandering(*), have to agree that Jim Fleming
has shown a almost superhuman ability to *consistently* be completely and
totally off-charter and off-topic.
-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech

(*) "My mind wanders so far, it brings back souvenirs" - author unknown 

 PGP signature

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Meritt James]

Don't you think a discussion on not having a discussion is off topic?

-- 
James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
phone: (410) 68406566

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Brian E Carpenter]

> That's what killfiles and filters are for.

Many of us still often connect by slow lines when on travel,
and can only filter in the user agent. I would much prefer
that rantings and ravings be filtered at source rather than
wasting time and money downloading them straight into the
trash folder.

   Brian

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Johnny Eriksson]

"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> > who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> > it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> > people on the list.
> 
> That's what killfiles and filters are for.

Yes.  And the filter is now in place.

--Johnny

RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[TOMSON ERIC]

Anthony,

I just wanted to humbly react to each sentence of your mail.

"I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those opinions are."
Good. Then subscribe to as many mailing lists as you wish, and don't criticize other 
people's opinions.

"I don't see why the world must be censored at the source just to meet your standards 
of what you do and don't want to see."
Then create your own mailing list where everybody can spam in full peace of mind. And 
by the way, stop using IETF standards, if you don't like them...

"And claiming to represent the majority is irrelevant, even if it is true (and I'm not 
convinced of that),"
Irrelevant? Really? How do you think people agree on common standards? By following 
minority's advice?
And if you are not so sure, just count how many mails support Jim Flaming - or you - 
and how many complain about! Don't you respect those opinions?

"because it is technologically quite possible for each person to censor his own mail 
at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the source, unless your real 
objective be to prevent _others_ from reading anything of which _you_
do not approve."
Are you the owner or moderator of the IETF mailing list? Do you officially represent 
the IETF? Have you been chosen/elected to speak in the name of everyone? Yes? No? So 
excuse me if I don't support your opinion on this subject and if I rely entirely on 
the opinion of Harald.

In conclusion, may I modestly suggest you to be more humble when you use a common 
resource (as this mailing list appears to be), then to take into account that majority 
you seem to have a low opinion of. Be careful : I'm close to consider you as a troll. 
Please prefer contributing to this mailing list rather than complaining about it!

E.T.

P.S.: it's a pity to observe that, whereas the majority of people agree on most 
topics, there is always some minority to claim that his opinion is more important, 
stating that "representing the majority is irrelevant". I'm afraid I consider such 
attitude as disrespectful.

-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

> I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> people on the list.

That's what killfiles and filters are for.

I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those opinions are.
I don't see why the world must be censored at the source just to meet your
standards of what you do and don't want to see.  And claiming to represent the
majority is irrelevant, even if it is true (and I'm not convinced of that),
because it is technologically quite possible for each person to censor his own
mail at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the source, unless
your real objective be to prevent _others_ from reading anything of which _you_
do not approve.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Jeffrey Altman]

"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> > who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> > it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> > people on the list.

> That's what killfiles and filters are for.

> I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those
> opinions are.  I don't see why the world must be censored at the
> source just to meet your standards of what you do and don't want to
> see.  And claiming to represent the majority is irrelevant, even if
> it is true (and I'm not convinced of that), because it is
> technologically quite possible for each person to censor his own
> mail at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the
> source, unless your real objective be to prevent _others_ from
> reading anything of which _you_ do not approve.

If you are interested in opinions no matter what they are then you
won't mind if someone starts to randomly forward postings from any of
the usenet newsgroups.  The question here is not whether or not
someone has a right to voice their opinion, but whether or not they
have a right to voice their opinion in this forum.

If this was a mailing list dedicated to earthworms and a posting on
IPv8 was repeatedly sent to the list in various forms, you would have
to agree that it would be inappropriate.

The IETF mailing list is supposed to be used only for items which are
of interest to the entire group of participants regardless of the
working group they participate in.  It would be inappropriate to
discuss implementations or usage of IMAP or SSH on this list.  That is
what the working group mailing lists are for.

In the same regard, IPv8 is not appropriate for this list.  One
posting would have been fine.  But to repeatedly receive similar
postings which contain the same message "use IPv8 its free" and which
do not result in any dialog other than "why is this being posted" and
"the author has the write to post" is just completely inappropriate.
The author has the right to his opinions and to voice them.  This is
not the appropriate forum.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Robert Elz]

Date:Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:43:55 +0200
From:"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:  <001801c15e13$7f84e550$0a0a@contactdish>

  | That's what killfiles and filters are for.

Nonsense.   There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle
mail filters just so you can continue to receive junk mail via a list where
it doesn't belong.

No-one is stopping you, or anyone else, from receiving all that noise if
you want to receive it - just go ask, I'm sure it will all get sent to
you.   Even if the whole IETF wanted to (which we don't), we simply don't
have the ability to stop that.

However, the ability exists to prevent noise postings on the IETF's list,
and it is entirely reasonable that it be implemented when it becomes
absolutely necessary.

If you want to, set up another list for Fleming to send his noise at, I
think the IETF would even allow you to advertise it (once) on the ietf
list, so everyone else who you believe is out there who wants to get
that rubbish can subscribe, and read it all.

kre

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

> I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
> who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
> it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
> people on the list.

That's what killfiles and filters are for.

I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those opinions are.
I don't see why the world must be censored at the source just to meet your
standards of what you do and don't want to see.  And claiming to represent the
majority is irrelevant, even if it is true (and I'm not convinced of that),
because it is technologically quite possible for each person to censor his own
mail at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the source, unless
your real objective be to prevent _others_ from reading anything of which _you_
do not approve.

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Paul Day]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
> just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I can decide for
> myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.

I'm really not interested in the opinions of people who continuously rant
and spam off-topic posts and it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
people on the list.

PD

-- 
Paul DayWeb: www.bur.st/~bonfire   PGP-key: www.bur.st/~bonfire/pk.txt

RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Ian King]

It's not a question of whether Fleming's opinions were popular - it's just that they 
were wildly irrelevant to the work of this list.  Having read many of his postings, I 
can only conclude that either (a) he was deliberately flame-baiting (and often 
successfully) or (b) his clue meter for "playing well with others" has actually bent 
the bottom pin and lodged itself in negative territory.  
 
FWIW, I concur with Harald's decision to employ this extreme sanction.  Knowing 
Harald, I am confident it was only after much careful consideration, and after many 
efforts to resolve the issue in other ways, that he did so.  -- Ian 

-Original Message- 
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thu 10/25/2001 1:08 PM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    Cc: 
    Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked



I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I can decide for
myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.

  -- Anthony

- Original Message -
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:20
    Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked


> After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after
> having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting
> privilleges to the IETF list.
>
> This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
>
> Harald T. Alvestrand
>  IETF Chair
>
>

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[RJ Auburn]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
> Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> > I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
> > just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?
> Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
> I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.

For the rest of his life :-)

RJ
--
RJ Auburn
Chief Network Architect
Voxeo Corporation

Bring your web application to the phone for free.
Find out how at http://community.voxeo.com

RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Brijesh Kumar]

Title: RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked





Anthony,


May be you can, but many of us who join IETF list would like to only read something that is related to the charter of the list. My friend, you are supporting the wrong person. The IETF list should not be treated as the "speaker's corner" in the Hyde Park. The person was previously given a chance to amend.

--bk
Corona Networks Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
> 
> 
> I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all 
> opinions--and not
> just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I 
> can decide for
> myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't 
> need your help.
> 
>   -- Anthony
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:20
> Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
> 
> 
> > After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to 
> the list after
> > having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim 
> Fleming's posting
> > privilleges to the IETF list.
> >
> > This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
> >
> > Harald T. Alvestrand
> >  IETF Chair
> >
> >
> 

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[grenville armitage]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> 
> I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
> just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?

Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.

cheers,
gja

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Mats Dufberg]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
> just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I can decide for
> myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.

You are free to set up any mailling list at your site for any discussions
on "IPv8" and other topics of that kind.


Mats

--
Mats Dufberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Ken Hornstein]

>I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
>just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I can decide for
>myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.

Certainly you can peruse Jim's web site for his opinions, can't you?

I think most of Jim's email is off-topic for this mailing list, so I
have no problem with his postings being blocked in this particular
forum.  If the New World Order comes in their black helecopters and
confiscates his web server, then that's a different story.

--Ken

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Anthony Atkielski]

I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?  I can decide for
myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.

  -- Anthony

- Original Message -
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:20
Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked


> After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after
> having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting
> privilleges to the IETF list.
>
> This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
>
> Harald T. Alvestrand
>  IETF Chair
>
>

Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia]

Thanks a lot Mr. Alvestrand...
I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciate this!

=)

Saludos.
Regards.
_
José Manuel Arronte García
Supervisor de Soporte Técnico Helpdesk

Meg@Red Veracruz
Telecomunicaciones y Entretenimiento S. A. de C. V.
Av. S. Díaz Mirón 2625-A
Fracc. Moderno 91916
Veracruz Ver. MÉXICO

+52 (2) 923-0400, 923-0410
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.megacable.com.mx
http://www.megared.net.mx

_
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
 and I'm not sure about the former".--A. Einstein



- Original Message -
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:20 PM
Subject: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked


> After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after
> having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting
> privilleges to the IETF list.
>
> This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.
>
> Harald T. Alvestrand
>  IETF Chair

Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

[Harald Alvestrand]

After having read the 4 messages that Jim Fleming sent to the list after 
having received my warning note, I have revoked Jim Fleming's posting 
privilleges to the IETF list.

This revocation will remain in effect for the next month.

Harald T. Alvestrand
 IETF Chair