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?
where do you get off claiming that I'm pretending either of these things?
I'm only claiming that one particular method of spam filtering - that
of expecting people to s u b s c r i b e before posting - (yes, even to a
"allow me to post list") is not appropriate for IETF lists.
What about months of work
wasted because a WG didn't get the input of those driven away by spam?
that's equally as bad as the months of work wasted because the WG
didn't get the input of someone driven away by the spam filter, of course.
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
what makes you think that I haven't done so? of course, when the message
gets forwarded by the WG chair, sometimes there's a delay of several
days, and often the message gets forwarded as if it's from the chair
(forwarded, rather than resent), with > marks down the left side, and
since my email address isn't in the message header, I don't get the
replies to the message. and in a couple of cases the chair has failed
to post the message even though it was squarely on topic for the list.
Wouldn't it be their job to do so if it was at all relevant?
certainly I think so.
Limitations on absolutely free direct immediate posting have negative
effects and *positive* effects. The right balance is different for
different mailing lists.
I've never claimed otherwise.