So, here are the choices:
1. Save thousands of people from having to deal with multiple spams per
day,
at the cost of presenting a minor inconvenience to a few, or
2. Require thousands of people to receive and deal with spam (or to
learn
all about mail filtering), in order to avoid inconveniencing a few.
you have it backwards. all subscribers of the list are 'inconvenienced'
if we discourage legitimate contributions from folks who are not willing
to jump through arbitrary and time-consuming hoops that we impose on them
just because a few people insisted (even in the face of evidence to the
contrary) that they knew what was best for everyone else.
This assumes that list filtering cannot be done sensibly. This assumption is
false; it can be done sensibly and is done sensibly all the time. And when it
is done sensibly the amount of inconvenience is unnoticeable. Sure, there are
plenty of lists that don't do filtering sensibly (including, alas, some IETF
WG
lists), but there are many others that do.
I also think that list filtering can be done sensibly, and I agree that this
is mostly (though not entirely) a matter of resources. what I am objecting to
is the notion that 'sensible filtering' (particularly on the IETF list)
equates to 'filtering postings from non-subscribers'.
calling those hoops a 'minor inconvenience' is also misleading.
Only if the lists aren't managed correctly.
which is, in my experience, all too often the case. and the knowledge
required to 'correctly' manage a list seems to be in short supply.
it would be useful to collect such knowledge into an RFC.
Keith, I have to say that you are becoming your own worst enemy in this
discussion. By insisting on an absolute policy of no filtering at all your
ability to influence the policy that eventually is adopted is being
compromised.
but I have never insisted on such a policy. I have only insisted that
it's not appropriate to expect people to subscribe to the list in order
to contribute to the discussion. in fact I use various kinds of filtering
on the lists that I maintain (different degrees depending on the nature
of the list), so I agree that filtering can be useful and appropriate.
As a result we are increasingly likely to end up with a list
policy imposed that doesn't accomodate some aspect of real world behavior that
could have been dealt with.
as you might imagine I am also frustrated by the tendency of this kind of
debate to polarize people around extreme positions, rather than to encourage
brainstorming about solutions that would address the entire spectrum of
interests and concerns that are expressed.
at the same time, I feel that it's important to argue against proposals
for quick fixes that seem shortsighted. we have too many of those already.
we need to understand the problem from a variety of perspectives before
insisting that our proposed solutions are appropriate to impose on everybody.
I also find the comparisons with NAT to be strained at best.
I'm sure we can all come up with examples of 'solutions' that served one
interest while harming others, or that served short term goals while doing
harm in the long term. NATs aren't an especially unusual example of this,
they're just an example that can be understood by most of the list.
Keith