On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:22:44PM -0700,
Marshall Rose <mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us> wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
he has been given a warning. if he continues to misbehave, then the
chairs will invoke bcp83 and ask the iesg to ban him from the
The RFC 3683 was discussed mostly to deal with people like Jim Fleming
who are clearly engaged in "what amounts to a "denial-of-service"
attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Typically, these
attacks are made by repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic,
inflammatory, or otherwise counter-productive." Pure trolls are easy
I presume (but you probably know it better than me :-) that it is the
reason why the BCP 83 talks more about "A Practice for Revoking
Posting Rights" (procedure, delay, etc) than about a precise
definition of the reasons for being revoked.
Using RFC 3683 to stop someone to express unpopular views or to raise
annoying issues is a bad move, IMHO. I specially wonder what rule
could be applied to rms' posting. The only one I see is
"unprofessional commentary" which is never defined.
if some-other-important-person sends a similarly offending message,
then he too will get a warning, and if he does it a second time, he
too will get at bcp83 timeout.
I'm not important so I assume the risk :-)