Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

I second this. If some WG wants to maintain such a bounced list, that's
fine, but there isn't sufficient reason for it to be a requirement.

It's too bad that the exponentially increasing volume of spam has such
corrosive effect but that is the reality. Every IETF WG list I have
anything to do with has spam filtration and/or moderation of various
sorts. And I know exactly what the response from those who claim to
represent "openness" will be to this message. But the fact is that, for
the vast majority of IETF WG mailing lists, eliminating spam filtration
or moderation would greatly decrease participation and decrease input. I
don't give a damn about personal opinions that everyone should be able
to do their own high quality spam filtration and or be willing to "just
hit D".  I'm talking about reality and they don't. The minor additional
effort by those not subscribed to subscribe or get themselves added to
the can-post-but-not-subscribed-list or send the contribution to the WG
chair for posting is certainly a cost and may eliminate some input but
I'm satisfied from the consensus in WGs where this has been discussed
that these effects are dwarfed by the loss of input and participation
that would occur if filtration and moderation were eliminated.

Donald

PS: The namedroppers list is a special case because of persistent
attempts over a long period to use it for purposes outside of the
charter of the WG. Becasue of this, it has been found necessary by the
WG chairs for human judgement to be used more than on any other WG
mailing list. The ADs and IESG and IETF chair, who represent and are
selected by the IETF community, are and have for a long time been fully
aware of this. The periodic waves of complaint messages on the subject
posted to the IETF list are primarily a waste of everyone's time since
the policies are supported by the consensus in the working groups
involved.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Randy Presuhn wrote:

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn(_at_)dorothy(_dot_)bmc(_dot_)com>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

Hi -

Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
<froomkin(_at_)law(_dot_)miami(_dot_)edu>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
In-Reply-To: 
<20021127155832(_dot_)12772(_dot_)qmail(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to>
Message-ID: 
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)10(_dot_)10211271147380(_dot_)7561-100000(_at_)spitfire(_dot_)law(_dot_)miami(_dot_)edu>

...

Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to
say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a
separate 'bounced' list.  To whom would this suggestion best be directed?

...

As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists
for several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a
requirement.  The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte
or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes
keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition.

(Much of the viral spam I see bears the forged addresses
of legitimate subscribers, so I have to resort to other
mechanisms to keep the lists clean.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 randy_presuhn(_at_)bmc(_dot_)com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------


-- 
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com