From: "Stephen Sprunk"
While I disagree with Dean in general and also with most of his current
argument, I think it is a reasonable request that IETF "officials" be given
an @ietf.org email alias and that those aliases be published for use in
situations such as this.
Exactly what is this situation? Why can't Mr. Anderson say whatever
he needs to say to Mr. Austein here or via a relevant working group
mailing list?
It's probably going too far to require sending mail from those aliases;
despite Dean's faults, he's smart enough to use the published alias if he
gets a bounce from someone's personal or work address.
How would Mr. Anderson use a private IETF alias belonging to Mr. Austein?
If sending a polite, IETF-relevant private message from one IETF
participant were important to Mr. Anderson, he would have long since
sent his message in public via an IETF mailing list. Any complaints
or other thoughts Mr. Anderson has about a working group, an AD, other
IETF participants, or whatever would have long since been forwarded
via a friend, sent to this mailing list, the IAB, or via the official
appeals process.
There is an important issue here separate from Mr. Anderson's concerns.
Why hasn't Mr. Anderson been told to say whatever he wants to say in
an IETF mailing lists or to the relevant IETF role accounts? Why has
the notion that individuals have rights enforced by IETF rules to send
private mail to other IETF participants been consistently supported
or at least never refuted? Mr. Alvestrand's recent message only
disavows the IETF's interest private filters. What RFC imposes an
obligation to receive private (not to mention unfriendly) mail on ADs,
WG chairs, or any IETF participants?
Private IETF aliases for IETF officials would be invitations for
harassment and abuse, and it is important that IETF participation not
be contingent on tolerating harassment or abuse. Harassment and abuse
must be defined by the targets of mail for deciding whether to accept
future private messages. IETF participants must be allowed their own
definitions of acceptable private mail, no matter how wrong they seem
to mail senders or third parties. Filtering messages to IETF mailing
lists is justifiably controversial, but private mailboxes are none of
the IETF's business, and not merely because of scaling problems.
I care about this issue because other individual IETF and ASRG
participants have threatened or started attacks on me similar to Mr.
Anderson's attack on Mr. Austein, because my mail systems are configured
to reject their private (not sent via IETF reflectors) mail.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf