I may have worded out too quickly my email, and actually looks like it was
more important for my decision the anonymity issue vs the off-top
question, but is still my opinion that this address must be banned.
We could take a decision on future anonymous postings, if required, I'm
always pro-privacy, but I don't think this is applicable in IETF works,
and this include exploders. Again this is my personal point of view.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
Fecha: martes, 22 de octubre de 2013 23:13
Para: Melinda Shore <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
CC: "<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with
mars(_dot_)techno(_dot_)cat(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Right, but as a matter of public record,
"As Sergeant-at-arms, I agree with other previous
postings and believe that anonymous posting is not
tolerable in the IETF mail exploders."
really should not be allowed to stand.
Let's give Jordi some time to respond. I don't think he reads the list
more than once a day, so he's probably innocently wondering why his ears
are burning.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.