Subject: Splitting the IETF-Announce list?

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:02:30 -0600

I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce list 
*except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft 
announcements. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who 
would prefer if the I-D announcements were on a separate mailing 
list. Would it be possible to implement this? If I am correct and 
there are an awful lot of people who are uninterested in I-D 
announcements, it would cut down on outgoing mail of the secretariat 
substantially.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:07:32 -0800

At 4:02 PM -0600 11/13/01, Pete Resnick wrote:
>I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce 
>list *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft 
>announcements,

Pete, you really should get a mail client that has an easy-to-use 
filtering interface. :-)

>  it would cut down on outgoing mail of the secretariat substantially.

Ah, that might be a consideration. Unless it turns out that the 
secretariat's Internet connection bills are high, it seems worthwhile 
to keep the lists merged. To many of us, seeing the names and titles 
of new -00 drafts is as interesting as seeing RFC announcements. 
Further, waiting until a draft is in IETF Last Call before people 
notice it is not a good way to create protocols.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:28:59 -0800

good idea.

offhand, I would make the split be between publishing activity and other 
announcements.

Hence, both I-Ds and RFC announcements would be on one list, whereas IETF 
Meeting, IETF Last call, Working Group Action announcements would be on the 
other.

d/

At 04:02 PM 11/13/2001 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
>announcements. I find it hard to believe that I

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:35:44 -0800 (PST)

The IETF list itself was split from one list to "discussion" and
"announcements."  I don't see why "announcements" can't be split to "IDs"
and "all other announcements."  People would still get ID announcements to
their WG lists of the particular ones they find pertinant and would still
see Last Calls to the gen'l announcement list.

.02
April

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:20:26 -0500

>see Last Calls to the gen'l announcement list.

        Seems reasonable to me.  Secretariat could create some new
list like "ID-Announce" for the I-D announcements, keeping the 
existing list for everything else.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Fred Douglis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:17:22 -0500

I filter IDs using procmail, but I agree with the argument that there is a
clear-cut case for separating out the lists.  If you want, keep the announce
list as-is, and make it mail to two sublists.  If someone wanted to unsubscribe
from the union of the lists and join just one part, they could do so.

Fred

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:37:21 -0500

>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> writes:
    Pete> I am interested in getting all of the posts to the IETF-Announce list
    Pete> *except* for the greatest bulk of those posts: Internet Draft
    Pete> announcements. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who
    Pete> would prefer if the I-D announcements were on a separate mailing
    Pete> list. Would it be possible to implement this? If I am correct and

  Yeah, I'd like the same thing, even if I wound up subscribing to both in
the end.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:38:19 -0800

At 4:28 PM -0800 11/13/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>offhand, I would make the split be between publishing activity and 
>other announcements.
>
>Hence, both I-Ds and RFC announcements would be on one list, whereas 
>IETF Meeting, IETF Last call, Working Group Action announcements 
>would be on the other.

Sounds like a good plan to me.  I would certainly find it helpful.

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:05:09 +0000

Excellent!  A proposal with a built-in migration strategy.  I like this.

#g
--

At 10:17 AM 11/14/01 -0500, Fred Douglis wrote:
>-
>This message was passed through [email-masked], which
>is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
>Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.

------------
Graham Klyne
[email-masked]