On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
[Cc to ietf-owner(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org and list-manager(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.
I note that the
"visible" email address and the email address in the mailto: are different]
At 04:35 08-05-2012, Hector Santos wrote:
Thats now two submissions by a subscribed member that are in la la
land. So its not working.
IMO, this policy in place for subscribed member mail holding and
filtering when the mail is never posted, needs to be seriously
reviewed. The perception amounts to nothing else but deliberate
censorship, especially when the mail appears to be discarded.
I see hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net as subscribed to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.
There hasn't been an
announcement, which is required, mentioning that the
address is moderated. The message posted around 7 May 2012 23:01:38 -0400
by hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net does not show up in the mailing list archive of
The message (4FA84A46(_dot_)2020407(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net) posted by
hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net around 7
May 2012 18:18:46 -0400 was handed over to mail.ietf.org around 7 May 2012
18:19:23 -0400 and distributed to the mailing list around 7 May 2012
18:19:47 -0400 without moderation.
It is understandable that there is a perception that the mail from the above
email address appears to be discarded or moderated. If the escalation path
is not working to your satisfaction, I suggest contacting the General Area
Director ( gen-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org ).
As I mentioned on May 5th, the IETF has a trouble reporting mechanism,
action(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org (or ietf-action(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org , they both
alias to the
Has this been reported there ? Bringing in Russ is not appropriate if
the basic reporting process
has not been followed.