Subject: IETF posting delays

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 18:39:27 -0400

For IETF mailing lists like this, I would prefer to use my real 
"professional" email address [email-masked]. However, since it 
often takes over 24 hours or longer, and in cases over the year "lost" 
(never posted), I regularly now use my junk gmail.com alias account 
which is posted on the IETF list "immediately" with a copy sent my 
santronics.com account hosting server and picked up within minutes of 
my next mail reader pop3 poll.

Have others experience similar delays with their accounts? and had to 
use other domains, like gmail.com?

When I first begin to take notice a while back and last year I decided 
to ask the list admin.  He replied shortly and indicated there was no 
moderation. I also asked a few IETF veterans, a WG chair and AD, and 
they all repeated there was no moderation going on.

But I believe I read an IETF person in the list explained delays was 
mostly due to moderation. If so, while I don't see any reason for it, 
I was never given any notice my email would be moderated and I would 
like to ask why my email is being moderated?

Of course, it doesn't make sense because if there was moderation it 
would be on the address and not the "person" since I can post via 
gmail.com.

If not the case, trying to provide the benefit of doubt and seeking a 
logical reason for it, I figured the IETF list/MTA software is using 
some custom outbound queuing/scheduling logic with a higher preference 
for email domain volume, i.e. gmail.com at the top and individual 
domain accounts last in its scheduling logic.  Since gmail.com is a 
popular account used by many in this list, maybe that would explain 
why the MTA sending this out faster than others. I offered this 
logical out reason to the list admin and he wasn't sure of the legacy 
software queuing logic.

Anyway, just trying to figure out why the delays since I can stick 
with my real account and not the gmail.com junk account.

Thanks

--
HLS

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:40:09 -1000

> like to ask why my email is being moderated?

i know of no moderated lists.  but, instead of conjecturbation, let's
debug the problem.  please show the Received: and other header lines of
a message posted from your work address.  or just post one now and we
can see it for ourselves.  thanks.

randy

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 23:54:24 -0400

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Hector <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "professional" email address [email-masked]. However, since it often
> takes over 24 hours or longer, and in cases over the year "lost" (never
> posted), I regularly now use my junk gmail.com alias account which is posted
> on the IETF list "immediately" with a copy sent my santronics.com account
> hosting server and picked up within minutes of my next mail reader pop3
> poll.

You should post an email that had this problem _with full headers_ to
[email-masked], which will open a trouble ticket.

It is possible you have been caught up in the anti-spam system, or you
may have uncovered some other problem.

Regards
Marshall

>
> Have others experience similar delays with their accounts? and had to use
> other domains, like gmail.com?
>
> When I first begin to take notice a while back and last year I decided to
> ask the list admin.  He replied shortly and indicated there was no
> moderation. I also asked a few IETF veterans, a WG chair and AD, and they
> all repeated there was no moderation going on.
>
> But I believe I read an IETF person in the list explained delays was mostly
> due to moderation. If so, while I don't see any reason for it, I was never
> given any notice my email would be moderated and I would like to ask why my
> email is being moderated?
>
> Of course, it doesn't make sense because if there was moderation it would be
> on the address and not the "person" since I can post via gmail.com.
>
> logical reason for it, I figured the IETF list/MTA software is using some
> custom outbound queuing/scheduling logic with a higher preference for email
> domain volume, i.e. gmail.com at the top and individual domain accounts last
> in its scheduling logic.  Since gmail.com is a popular account used by many
> in this list, maybe that would explain why the MTA sending this out faster
> than others. I offered this logical out reason to the list admin and he
> wasn't sure of the legacy software queuing logic.
>
> Anyway, just trying to figure out why the delays since I can stick with my
> real account and not the gmail.com junk account.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> HLS

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 01:16:09 -0400

> can see it for ourselves.  thanks.

Thanks Randy, I asked because I had replied to the last J. Klensin and 
M. Banks  exchange (Re: Is the IETF aging?) with my 
[email-masked] account and it has yet to be posted.

These are the MUA creation sent headers and payload as shown my my MUA 
and below this is my MSA/MTA server SMTP session trace showing the 
transport to the list:

           ------------ CUT HERE ----------
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:18:20 -0400
From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Is the IETF aging?
References: 
<[email-masked]>	<[email-masked]> 
<CAMm+Lwi8iOEnXxrj3-AaYVresops03LmasBs16FHk_1kaSX=[email-masked]> 
<[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To: 
<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>> True, but that does not mean that you should decide that there is
>> nothing the IETF can do to change those characteristics or is in fact
>> doing albeit unintentionally.
> 
> So, what would you do to adjust things ?
> 
> Regards
> Marshall

Some suggestions:

   - Increase IETF brand awareness
     - Leverage the IETF Brand
     - FaceBook page
     - Twitter account
     - Better On-line Access/Participation
     - Forums based communications
        - Offer personalization profiling
           - Photos, etc, "face behind name"
     - IETF "Radio"

   - Encourage elders, veterans Mentoring
       - ID, RFC development
          - Discourage "Use Usual Editors" mindset
       - Consider "PWG "Preliminary Working Groups" to sense full WG
          - Often decision left to the certain few (high barrier)

      on an indirect but I believe part of the improving IETF
      brand and image:

      - Serious review of "Rough Consensus" process
         - Technical Advisors need to get involved earlier

   - Leverage Assets
       - RFC format as a Tech Writing model for Engineering Students
       - Professional Trade member/certification "badge"
       - IETF membership subscriptions
          - Discounts

   - Seek more academia, industry, govt joint ventures
       - Summer "IETF" Internship
       - Start up, grants
       - Resource site

   - Assistance, Awareness with Legal, IP issues (international, etc)

   - Personally, increase the quality of work, minimize the "Fix it
     later" mindset - major turn off for young people IMV.

And perhaps, hire a PR, technical sales consultant who knows the
subtleties of what comes first; Marketing or Technology.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: [email-masked]
           ------------ CUT HERE ----------

And the following is my host MTA output smtp session trace to the 
list. You can see the MUA to MSA and router MTA send off time diff 
only by 12-13 secs. The message has not been list processed yet as of 
this post (or I have not received it yet by my host).

               ------- CUT HERE ---------
**************************************************************************
Wildcat! ESMTP Server v6.4.454.1
SMTP log started at Sat, 05 May 2012  16:18:31
Connection Time: 20120505 16:18:31  cid: 00000000 tid: 1540
SSL Enabled: YES
Message Queue: d:\spool\santronics\smtp\22516W
Destination: [email-masked]
Mail Host IP: 12.22.58.30:25 (mail.ietf.org)
Attempt #1 LastAttempt: n/a
16:18:31.058 (1540.0075260) ** Opening Connection to host: 
mail.ietf.org ip: 12.22.58.30:25
16:18:31.916 (1540.0075260) S: 220 ietfa.amsl.com ESMTP Postfix
16:18:31.916 (1540.0075260) C: EHLO dkim.winserver.com
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ietfa.amsl.com
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-PIPELINING
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-SIZE 67108864
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ETRN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250-8BITMIME
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) S: 250 DSN
16:18:32.010 (1540.0075260) C: MAIL FROM:<[email-masked]>
16:18:32.088 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.1.0 Ok
16:18:32.088 (1540.0075260) C: RCPT TO:<[email-masked]>
16:18:33.180 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.1.5 Ok
16:18:33.180 (1540.0075260) C: DATA
16:18:33.258 (1540.0075260) S: 354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
16:18:33.461 (1540.0075260) S: 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 20B0821F85FF
16:18:33.461 (1540.0075260) C: QUIT
16:18:33.555 (1540.0075260) S: 221 2.0.0 Bye
16:18:33.555 (1540.0075260) ** Completed. Elapsed Time: 2543 msecs
               ------- CUT HERE ---------

Thanks for your interest

--
HLS

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 20:09:01 -0400

Please pardon this submission processing test using a different account.

--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://hector.wildcatblog.com

Hector wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
>>> When I first begin to take notice a while back and last year I 
>>> decided to ask the list admin.  He replied shortly and indicated 
>>> there was no moderation. I also asked a few IETF veterans, a WG chair 
>>> and AD, and they all repeated there was no moderation going on.
>>>
> <[email-masked]>    
> <[email-masked]>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 15:41:44 -1000

indeed, the following line in your header was the clue.

X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:10:17 -0700

this means you posted from an address not subscribed and it required
manual intervention.

randy

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:25:03 +0200

That is interesting, I didn't had this line in the header. Strange.

	jaap

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 22:51:38 -1000

> That is interesting, I didn't had this line in the header. Strange.

that is because you posted from the address which was subscribed so
needed no manual intervention.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 08:48:03 -0400

> needed no manual intervention.

Question, did the IETF list setup disable the "non-member" email 
notifications?

I use to get these emails offering options to wait for moderator 
approval or click a URL to cancel the submission.  I have not seen 
these again for this IETF list.  The grief with the unknown delays and 
mistake postings would of been avoided.

I wonder if it was disabled since for this special IETF DISCUSS list 
there are times when I see an RFC editor or IESG reviewers want 
responses to include/keep the target addresses. If it includes 
non-member list addresses, then you begin to get the annoying 
non-member notifications.  So you either punt and don't provide input 
or you are presented with the undesired need to subscribe to the 
list(s) perhaps only temporarily to avoid the notifications and also 
avoid delays waiting for moderator approval and that may not even 
happen! Not pleasant to put time and energy in IETF participation and 
having to wonder what is going with postings delays.  Do you repost? 
Do you use another address? How long do you wait?  Should you bother 
people about this?

Anyway thought about this problem and created a possible Temporary Non 
Member White listing idea:

bool CheckMemberShip(
     char *pszList, // list name
     char *pszFrom, // poster address
     char *pszSubj  // message 5322.Subject
)

/*
    return true if pszFrom address is a member of pszList
    or is a returning non-member submission with the same list
    and same pszSubj (topic) allowing for an automated means
    to reduce delays, reduce hold mail queues and reduce
    the moderator work load without requiring the user to
    subscribe to a list he prefers not to join for a limited
    posting need.
*/

{
    // If the user is a list member, then return true
    // and continue with the list submission.

    if (IsListMember(pszList, pszFrom))
       return true;

    // Check for a returning non-member same topic post.
    // If missing, create conocalized hash for the list+from+topic
    // allowing temp authorization to post to the list under the
    // same topic in future submissions. return true if
    // the returning user is allowed to post without delay.

    if (CheckTempMemberHash(pszList,pszFrom,pszSubj))
       return true;

    // first time submission or different topic.
    // Create the non-member notification. When a poster
    // changes the subject line, will trigger a reset.

    CreateNonMemberNotification(pszList,pszFrom,pszSubj);

    // return false to move the submission to a hold
    // queue waiting for moderator approval

    return false;
}

Of course, other control factors are not shown, like a limited time 
window for expiring the temp member status.  I might just add this to 
our list server. :)

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 08:30:36 -0500

On May 7, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

> Question, did the IETF list setup disable the "non-member" email notifications?

Spam reduction. We apply the rule to all of our mailing lists, and it is very helpful.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:42:43 -0400

> Spam reduction. We apply the rule to all of our mailing lists, and it is very helpful.

Indeed, this is a common practice, especially for highly public and 
active mailing lists.

It saves traffic and it saves administrative effort.

Talking about it in an extended thread defeats both of these benefits...

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Ofer Inbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:45:13 -0400

> Spam reduction. We apply the rule to all of our mailing lists, and it is very helpful.

I don't think that's what Hector asked.

The question isn't "do we block email from non-members";
the question seems to be "we used to reply to the sender with a
notification that their message was blocked due to not being a
list member, with options to wait or cancel; did we disable those
notifications?"

At least that's how I read it.
  -- Cos

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 09:55:34 -0400

On 5/7/2012 9:45 AM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> Fred Baker<[email-masked]>  wrote:

And I took Fred's response as answering it.

Spam efforts exploit return address vectors.  This can make it 
problematic to send back failure notices.

It has become common for automated response mechanisms NOT to send a 
response, such as for a failed posting.

d/

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 May 2012 14:18:04 -0000

>> list member, with options to wait or cancel; did we disable those

I sure hope so.  These days about 99.9% of spam from unknown senders
is spam with forged addresses, so responses are just more spam aka
blowback.

There are networks that send me far more blowback than all the other
mail they send combined.

R's,
John

PS: Postini, we're talking to you.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 11:03:28 -0400

--On Monday, May 07, 2012 14:18 +0000 John Levine
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> the question seems to be "we used to reply to the sender
>>> with a notification that their message was blocked due to
>>> not being a list member, with options to wait or cancel; did
>>> we disable those notifications?"
> 
> I sure hope so.  These days about 99.9% of spam from unknown
> senders is spam with forged addresses, so responses are just
> more spam aka blowback.

At the same time, the IETF has considerable obligations about
openness.  From that point of view, silently discarding messages
from someone who thought they had properly subscribed could be
rather bad news.  Fortunately, if I correctly understand the
thread, we aren't doing that, we are moderating instead.  

If that is correct, it seems to me that it might be appropriate
to send a message to the submitter of a moderated message
explaining that moderation leads to both delays and extra work
so that, if they intend to submit further messages from the
address, they should subscribe properly.  That approach would
seem to serve both efficiency (fewer messages to moderate
because people would be warned to subscribe) and anti-blowback
efforts (the only messages that would generate responses to a
supposed submission addresses are those that had already been
found sufficiently valid/relevant to post to the list).

It also seems to me that our subscription and archive pages
might well be modified to be explicit about what our procedures
actually are.  Doing so would improve openness, help some
contributors, and not help any spammers who are indifferent to
whether their messages go (anyone wanting to specifically spam
IETF lists can figure out how to subscribe, even with our
verification process).

If an active contributor like Hector is posting one message
after another, seeing delays, and not noticing that he is not
properly subscribed at that address, it seems to me that we
could, and should, be doing better rather than blaming the
victim.

    john

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:06:12 -0500

I agree with you John.  I know that I have had messages discarded on
several occasions.  As a moderator, I look at the legitimacy of the posting
and if it is a member of the community (it's generally very easy to tell),
then I add them as being able to post even though they aren't subscribed.
This can be very helpful as many of us use multiple addresses.

Mary.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:30:09 -0400

--On Monday, May 07, 2012 11:06 -0500 Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with you John.  I know that I have had messages
> discarded on several occasions.  As a moderator, I look at the
> legitimacy of the posting and if it is a member of the
> community (it's generally very easy to tell), then I add them
> as being able to post even though they aren't subscribed. This
> can be very helpful as many of us use multiple addresses.

Yes.  As a user of multiple addresses, one of the cases I was
worried about was precisely the one of someone posting from an
address that is not normally used with a particular list.

I just had a very helpful off-list discussion with Paul Hoffman
who pointed out that my suggestion was stated badly and easily
misunderstood.  So, to clarify, assume that a message from a
previously-unknown address shows up on the list.  Unless other
heuristics discard it as, e.g., malware, the message goes into a
moderator queue.  There are then, I think, three possible cases:

(1) Moderator decides message is trash and discards it.  As you
say, it is usually pretty easy to tell.

(2) Moderator decides the message is legitimate, allows it to be
posted, and authorizes that address to post to the list in the
future (as you suggest).

(3) Moderator decides the message is legitimate, allows it to be
posted, but does not authorize future unmoderated postings from
that address.  This could happen for any of several reasons,
ranging from accidentally not getting the box checked to the
moderator's not being sure the message is really from an active
community member who is already subscribed to the list even
though the message content is fine.

For that third case, I was trying to suggest that it would be
good to automatically generate a message to the posting address
indicating that, while the posting had been approved by the
moderator, subscribing would be a really good idea if the person
intended to use the address in the future.  

Paul pointed out that automatically generating such a message
would almost certainly require modifications to Mailman code and
that such modifications are a non=starter.   That doesn't make
the idea a bad one, only one that is unimplementable with an
acceptable level of resource investment and possibly one that
should be passed on to the Mailman powers-that-be as a
suggestion.

I was not suggesting any change at all for the first case other
than we review our subscription and archive pages to be sure
they are adequately clear that postings from non-subscribers are
not guaranteed to appear on the relevant list.

best,
    john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:26:39 -0700

Hi Ofer,
>list member, with options to wait or cancel; did we disable those

Some IETF mailing lists send a notification to the sender if a 
message is held for moderation and the ability to cancel the 
posting.  Speaking about the IETF mailing lists I am aware of, email 
from non-subscribers go to a moderation queue.  The options used for 
these queues have always been reject (send a bounce) or allow the 
message through.  The "discard" option is not used on those lists.

The response time is usually under twenty-four hours.  There was only 
one case of incorrect rejection as it was not possible for the 
moderator to read the contents of that message easily.  There were 
only two cases of posting delays:

  (i)  Misunderstanding relating to prior discussions about postings

  (ii) Forty-eight hour delay which could be attributed to laziness

The IETF celebrates Mailman day on the first day of each 
month.  Every subscriber is sent a notification about the IETF 
mailing lists he or she is subscribed to.  There are a few cases of 
subscribers being automatically unsubscribed from an IETF mailing 
list due to excessive bounces.  This happened for an IETF mailing 
list which makes ietf@ look like a low volume.

The IESG in its wisdom and kindness has provided the following statements:

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/moderated-lists.html
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/spam-control.html

IETF mailing lists do not use the List-Owner: header.  If you need a 
point of contact, you can find the email address of the mailing list 
moderator by accessing the first URI in the List-Subscribe: header.

The message with msg-id [email-masked] was delayed 
due to moderation.  The delay may be influenced by the current 
definition of GMT (UTC - 0700) within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:21:09 -0400

offlist.

On 5/7/2012 12:06 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>   I know that I have had messages discarded on several occasions.  As a
> moderator, I look at the legitimacy of the posting and if it is a member
> of the community (it's generally very easy to tell), then I add them as
> being able to post even though they aren't subscribed. This can be very
> helpful as many of us use multiple addresses.

Mary,

The issue is a matter of scaling and resources.  For small lists with 
low traffic, setting to moderate mis-postings works well.  For larger 
and more visible lists, with more activity, it doesn't.  The 
signal-to-noise ratio is horrible.  (That's a first-hand opinion, not an 
abstraction.)

On the other hand, if you are volunteering to moderate mis-posted 
messages for the IETF list, perhaps the list administrator will let you...

d/

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 18:18:46 -0400

Hi,

I think what has been lost here is that the delays were not just with 
my non-member submission, but also my member address as well.  The 
fact that it is intermittent makes it all very odd.  I still have yet 
to receive a May 6 8:49PM reply post using my member address and its 
been nearly 22 hours.  The odd thing is that someone indicated offlist 
they received a copy of it.  But its not on the IETF list archive and 
my servers show no evidence of any attempt.

My MTA machine use SPF with hard fail policies (no softfail or neutral 
results) and all my mail is signed, that doesn't seem to have any 
weight.  Whats odd is if this is indeed of case of specific 
individuals moderation, its filtered on domains only and not the 
"person" because I have no problem with gmail.com postings.

Thanks

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:01:34 -0400

On May 7, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Hector Santos wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think what has been lost here is that the delays were not just with my non-member submission, but also my member address as well.  The fact that it is intermittent makes it all very odd.  I still have yet to receive a May 6 8:49PM reply post using my member address and its been nearly 22 hours.  The odd thing is that someone indicated offlist they received a copy of it.  But its not on the IETF list archive and my servers show no evidence of any attempt.

Maybe you have "not metoo" (Receive your own posts to the list?) set on your mailman entry? 
Actually, if you login to mailman for the discuss list does it show anything interesting about your address?

W

> 
> My MTA machine use SPF with hard fail policies (no softfail or neutral results) and all my mail is signed, that doesn't seem to have any weight.  Whats odd is if this is indeed of case of specific individuals moderation, its filtered on domains only and not the "person" because I have no problem with gmail.com postings.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- 
> Hector Santos

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:40:59 -0700

Hi Hector,
At 15:18 07-05-2012, Hector Santos wrote:
>I think what has been lost here is that the delays were not just 
>with my non-member submission, but also my member address as 
>well.  The fact that it is intermittent makes

How do you know that the email address is currently subscribed to 
this mailing list?

>  it all very odd.  I still have yet to receive a May 6 8:49PM reply 
> post using my member address and its been nearly 22 hours.  The odd 
> thing is that someone indicated offlist they received a copy of 
> it.  But its not on the IETF list archive and my servers show no 
> evidence of any attempt.

The "May 6 8:49 PM" in the above is ambiguous.  The problem which you 
described is odd.  It was mentioned in a message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73207.html that:

   "I figured the IETF list/MTA software is using some custom outbound
    queuing/scheduling logic with a higher preference for email domain
    volume, i.e. gmail.com at the top and individual domain accounts
    last in its scheduling logic."

The round-trip for a message posted earlier was 20 seconds.  What 
response did you receive from [email-masked] when you reported 
the posting problem?

Regards,
-sm