On 2008-04-15 05:12 Ned Freed said the following:
On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following:
On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed
bypass
of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist.
So it seems to me that you've failed to see the problem.
Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering.
I see nothing in the requirements that says this supposed to be possible as a
unilateral action on the part of the poster. That's clearly preposterous - it
should go without saying that whitelisting arrangements are just that:
Arrangements. The requirements leave open how such arrangements are made; IMO
that's entirely appropriate.
This would also
include a spammer who considers himself a valid poster. At the same time,
the IETF lists MUST provide spam control. I see this as a contradiction in
the announced text.
Only if you engage in a VERY creative reading of what's there.
As has been painfully clear for some email round-trips, we obviously don't
agree.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf