At 10:12 AM 2/2/2001 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
>I called it illegal because a localpart should be opaque outside its
>local environment. I tried to find a reference to this effect in some
>standard but couldn't. It may just be "practiced wisdom" but I can not
>remember a time when it wasn't t
> you're missing the point. one shouldn't have to jump through extra
> hoops (even if they're trivial to jump through) just to contribute
> to a working group discussion.
Please note: one doesn't have to jump through hoops.
At any rate, I've opened up the mailing list, not because
the argumen
> > No, I don't care that having a moderator-in-the-middle filtering
> > everything is in the spirit of the midcom charter and must be for my
> > own good. I _really_ don't like the concept of an IETF-approved
> > poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server.
>
> Given how trivially easy it is
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I run many lists. They are now all restrict_post, but I always make
>> a corresponding -nomail list. Both are managed by majordomo, but -nomail
>> has defunct aliases.
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is like this, and recei
Lloyd and all,
I am heartened to read your post and somewhat encouraged to see that
other than myself and a very few others that someone has the courage
to stand up for open discourse and free exchange of ideas on the IETF
mailing lists. I for one agree with you that if filtering is needed by
I agree that it's wrong to assuming that "." is a separator, but if
you have a subscriber named "xxx.yyy@zzz", how likely is it really
that a posting from "xxx@zzz" is spam?
Aah, I wasn't seeing your heuristic correctly before. I agree, the
probability such a thing is spam is prett
Jim,
I agree that it's wrong to assuming that "." is a separator, but if
you have a subscriber named "xxx.yyy@zzz", how likely is it really
that a posting from "xxx@zzz" is spam?
Keith
Jim,
Thanks for your comments:
> Your suggestion to automate the detection of "persistent and excessive"
> could work for people and would help "throttle down" those discussions
> that need it from time to time, but it would not protect an elist from
> spam.
Neither does non-subscriber moderati
TECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd)
Lloyd,
I second your request:
>>... unless you have a specific request for a ... IESG statement,
>
> I'd like a statement that RFC2418 will be
> From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>...However, because spam filters can make mistakes, it is
> highly desirable (as a sanity check/second opinion) for a human to
> double check automatic rejections. Unfortunately, having a human look
> at a message and decide whether to forwa
8:08 -0500
From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James M Galvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd)
> There's anothe
I really don't want to participate in a flame-war about "moderation",
but
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As long as WG chairs are trusted to determine WG consensus, I don't
> see why they can't determine if a message is obviously irrelevant to
> the tasks for which a WG
Lloyd,
Just to be clear:
> > If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that
> > up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD.
> done. on cc. On open IETF lists, I have the right to post what you
> deem to be rubbish, and you have the right to choose to ignore me (and
>
Lloyd,
I second your request:
>>... unless you have a specific request for a ... IESG statement,
>
> I'd like a statement that RFC2418 will be adhered to by mailing lists.
So would I. I use multiple email addresses: [local-subaddr]@bovik.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. -- like thousands of oth
> I run many lists. They are now all restrict_post, but I always make
> a corresponding -nomail list. Both are managed by majordomo, but -nomail
> has defunct aliases.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is like this, and receives daily posts
> from people reporting problems.
if the list is set up right,
> I believe most IETF WG mailing lists restrict automatic posting to
> those subscribed and a list of other from addresses.
I have the opposite belief. I've been using subaddresses for several
years (so I wasn't posting from the same address at which I was receiving
list mail) and most of the l
I believe most IETF WG mailing lists restrict automatic posting to
those subscribed and a list of other from addresses. As a practical
matter, in this age of spam, that is considered "open" and, if not in
place, is commonly demanded by a consensus of the WG. Every WG is a
little different and I
> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> On the contrary, it's clearly practical as I have running code in
Keith> bulk_mailer that does this (which will be in the next release).
Keith> Nor is it illegal. Since there are no standards regarding list filtering
> There's another subtlety here - lists that filter mail from
> non-subscribers penalize folks who use subaddressing for incoming
> list mail, since they don't post from the same address at which they
> are subscribed. Ideally, lists should not consider subaddresses
> when com
Although it is true that RFC2418 does not explicitly permit the "review"
of messages submitted to elists from non-subscribers, it is in fact an
accepted practice on IETF elists. So much so that the IESG has
published a statement regarding the policy and procedures of such
practices:
http://w
> The mailing list as delivered unto us by the IETF administrator
> has a preset policy of holding email from someone not on the
> mailing list until it's released by an administrator. We can
> change that if people feel sufficiently strongly.
For me it's completely UNacceptable to expect peop
> No, I don't care that having a moderator-in-the-middle filtering
> everything is in the spirit of the midcom charter and must be for my
> own good. I _really_ don't like the concept of an IETF-approved
> poster to a mailing list on an IETF-run server.
Given how trivially easy it is to subscribe
22 matches
Mail list logo
