This also seems to fall into the definition of intimidation. Other similar
messages by Michel Py have been included below.
I ask the Chair to take the appropriate action.
--Dean
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Added to the pro-troll and pro-spammer list: Richard Perlman.
Michel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Perlman [mailto:perl(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 6:53 PM
To: 'IETF Discussion'
Cc: harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Subject: Re: This IETF discussion list
All:
I have been loosely tracking the SPAM discussion and really had nothing
significant to add. However, a related posting did catch my attention
and interest, enough so to warrant a response.
While I certainly am not interested in taking sides on the personal
accusations that have been seen recently, I do have serious concerns
about the message quoted below. I personally detest the daily deluge of
unwanted unsolicited e-mails I receive. However, I would be even more
upset to find that one's belief or support for or against any topic
should be the criteria by which their contributions were judged.
As despicable as I may find the concepts, opinions and thoughts of
others, a world in which the expression of only those ideas that I found
acceptable would be far worse.
Having said that, I do want to be clear, that while I think there needs
to be freedom for expression of ideas, that expression must be done in a
way that encourages discussion and values the participation of everyone.
There is no room for personal remarks and attacks in a conversation of
ideas.
Richard
On 6/3/03 15:00, "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> quoted:
==================
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 02:09:25 +0200
From: "Tomson Eric (Yahoo.fr)" <Tomson_Eric(_at_)Yahoo(_dot_)fr>
To: 'Eric A. Hall' <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com>, 'John Stracke'
<jstracke(_at_)centive(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: spam
Guys,
Dean Anderson obviously supports and defends SPAM.
No further conversation with him could lead to anything constructive.
Stop feeding the Troll, now.
E.T.
================
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 13:39:24 -0700
From: Michel Py <michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: spam
Eric A. Hall wrote:
Nobody seems to think there is a cost associated
with "hit delete"
Typical spammer answer.
Added to troll list: Eric A. Hall.
Michel.
================
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 21:30:39 -0700
From: Michel Py <michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: spam
Paul Vixie wrote:
warning, i'm answering an obvious troll from an obvious spammer.
hit D now.
Yeah I think we should work on a system to ban obvious spammers from
IETF lists. Maybe we should also ban people that are so full of it that
they could double as a sceptic tank such as the ones that try to convey
the idea that handling spam has no cost.
Paul, I'm curious: why are you wasting your time with this? Any
withdrawals from not fighting it on a daily basis?
=================