Subject: RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:12:50 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "BookIII, Robert" <[email-masked]>

> ...
> save for a couple of auto-responses from NTMail in the name of
> ...

> but have started up again. Does anyone know how I could go about addressing
> this? Thanks for your time and consideration.

You can expect at least 3 and usually several more "vacation" notices,
delayed delivery warnings, and non-delivery bounces for each message you
send to the main IETF list over the course the week or 10 days after
sending.

By my recollections, even 10 years ago such garbage was unusual and
cause for complaints and apologies.  That nothing happens today, not even
the automatic removal of persistently broken addresses, is a commentary
on the changing nature of the IETF.  If you're an optimist, you might
infer only something about growth.

I've thought of suggesting that the IESG should maintain an address to
which such bounces could be sent to remove the offending address, but
then I've also throught of the reasonable (e.g. authentication) and silly
(e.g. censorship) controveries such a suggestion would trigger.

I've also thought of mentioning that I really don't need to see a dozen
announcements for the same junket of some other organization's boondoogle,
but then I've remembered we've gone through that many times.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]