Why do you keep pretending that sending mail to the main submission
address is the only way to get a message out on a mailing list and
that there isn't immense harm done by spam? What about months of work
wasted because a WG didn't get the input of those driven away by spam?
If you have trouble submitting mail to a WG maiiling list, or even
think you might, why not just send mail to the chair and ask them to
post it? Wouldn't it be their job to do so if it was at all relevant?
Limitations on absolutely free direct immediate posting have negative
effects and *positive* effects. The right balance is different for
different mailing lists.
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: grenville armitage <gja(_at_)UREACH(_dot_)COM>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 May 2001 22:24:27 PDT."
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:49:44 -0400
however, I have seen a couple of occasions where I believe that
a 'moderator' acted inappropriately in filtering messages that
came from non-subscribers but were arguably on-topic for the lists.
So the non-subscriber subscribed, and their posts went through okay,
no. the WG was badly in need of a clue from folks outside of the WG -
because the WG was failing to understand how its work would interact
with and/or affect other applications or protocols outside of its purview.
the would-be contributor did not want to subscribe to the list because
he/she had no desire to participate in the day-to-day conversations of
the working group. after all, the contributor normally worked at
layer X while the WG was working at layer Y.
still, the WG needed the contribution. it would have benefited from
knowing that what it was doing was inherently flawed, and that its
poorly-informed design decisions would do harm and/or cause its work
to be less useful than anticipated.
but the capriciousness of the mailing list maintainer prevented this
from happening, and many months of hard work were wasted.
(If not, and the moderator was in fact filtering all posts
to the mailing list in question, then this example is a red-herring.)
seems like you've left a big hole in your case analysis.
Gas tanks explode - we ban cars?
if the gas tanks explode under normal or even occasional use, we do in
fact recall the car.
you seem to believe that non-subscribers are inherently illegimiate,
and that any barriers we erect to make it more difficult for them to
post are therefore justified. looks like circular reasoning to me.