On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
<froomkin(_at_)law(_dot_)miami(_dot_)edu>
[cc's trimmed]
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?
1. Many WG lists themselves aren't archived, but you want to force bounced
messages to be? Are you ready to pay for this?
I have just run into an example of this (POISSON) when I was unable to
find the archive. I was surprised -- and puzzled. Surely the storage
costs for archiving ALL IETF lists, especially in their spamless form,
can't be that great? What sort of volume are we talking about ?
2. The volume of spam in a bounced-messages archive would quickly change
your mind.
Here, you could well be right. But would that have to be held beyond the
life of the group?
3. All of this would be easily solved by someone (e.g. IETF secretariat)
providing list service for all WGs with a consistent policy.
Agree. But I'd like to also suggest that part of this policy is keeping
the (unspammed) archives around, if only for the sake of people (like me)
who try sometimes to write the history of decision-making in some of these
areas.
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin(_at_)law(_dot_)tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--