Subject: [Asrg] RE: Request to mailing list Asrg rejected

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 12:08:59 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: Asrg (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Request to mailing list Asrg rejected
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 	The discussion was about the potential abuse of schemes 
> such as DCC for censorship. If you cannot see why Vernon's 
> personal actions as the instigator of DCC are relevant to 
> that debate then I cannot help you.

My point is that there have been so many flames between you and Vernon that
it is difficult for anyone to determine when what you are saying about DCC
is a productive argument versus a personal one. I think that you have more
to contribute here than just biased comments about DCC. So, all I'm asking
is that you focus on other topics. Everytime the two of you respond to each
other, the conversation turns personal within two replies. Therefore, stop
replying to each other. The reason that I direct this to you rather than he
is that I have read every message on this list and I see you time after time
turn any thread into an attack on DCC. Your point is taken; now please
contribute something else to the group. 

> 	I note also that you are not willing to tell the list 
> that you are censoring most people's posts 

I am moderating the group, not censoring it. Moderating the group is one of
the responsibilities of the chair of the group according to RFC 2014. I
publicly mentioned this in a message to the list on 5/7. Anyone that has
been affected by this has received a message from me explaining why I do not
believe that the post is relevant. I also ask the person to extract the
relevant information and resubmit the post. 

Excerpt from my post on 5/7 explaining the moderation: "Recently, I began
active moderation of certain participants using the mailing list software.
The list of participants that are moderated in this manner will increase.
Persons are not happy about being included on this list, however the
productivity of this list is more important than my popularity on this list.
The purpose of this group is to contribute to solving the spam problem. I
realize that not everyone on this list has that as a priority; therefore, I
will be more stringent in determining persons that are acting in a manner
contrary to this goal and eliminate the negative effect that they have on
this group."
 
> except for Vernon 
> who many consider to be the biggest timewaster. 

Again, personal attacks.

> 	Furthermore I am not the only ex-member of the group 
> who has grown tired of you using the position for personal 
> grandstanding with the press. 

Two points: 
1) If you're an ex-member why are you still posting to the group?
2) I have previously addressed inquires about the group's pressu. The point
is that everyone in the world is interested in the problem of spam. This
research group is recognized as a reliable source of information and folks
are curious about what we are working on. When someone asks me about the
group, I explain to them what we are working on. It is just that simple. Or
I could decline to speak with people and have them draw their own
conclusions. I have tried that in the past and for some reason they assume
that the group is intent upon replacing SMTP. I will explain the group's
goals to anyone that asks, including my mother or the press. I am about the
dissemination of factual information.

Philip, I am a researcher. I am here because I realize that this is a
difficult and multi-dimensional problem and I am  interested in working to
understand the problem and working to solve it. You personally stated to me
that Verisign's public relations department wants to position you as a spam
expert so that you can help promote their hardware authentication solution.
I wish you well in your endevaours; however, you should not confuse your
goals with mine. 

> 
> 	Vernon did not bother to turn up at the meeting, ...

Yet another personal attack. Three personal attacks in one post from you.
This is exactly the unproductive behavior that requires your posts to be
moderated.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:27 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Request to mailing list Asrg rejected
> > 
> > 
> > Your request to the Asrg mailing list
> > 
> >     Posting of your message titled "Censorship of ASRG - Yes it is 
> > over"
> > 
> > has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the 
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
> > 
> > "Yes, you made a few relevant points, but then you spoiled it with 
> > comments about Vernon that have nothing to do with your post. Is it 
> > necessary to attack DCC and Vernon in every post? I think that in 
> > general if you refrain from mentioning that topic, then your posts 
> > will be more relevant."
> > 
> > Any questions or comments should be directed to the list 
> administrator
> > at:
> > 
> >     [email-masked]
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg