Subject: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2002 11:49:42 -0000

I've sent twelve messages to the namedroppers mailing list this month.
Five of them have been silently discarded by the namedroppers censor,
Randy Bush. (See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous
incidents.)

Bush says that the only relevant feature of my messages is that they're
sent from an address that isn't subscribed to namedroppers. Okay, boys
and girls, let's look at some statistics:

   * 5/12 of my messages have been silently discarded;

   * according to Bush, this has nothing to do with me or the content,
     so we estimate that about 5/12 of all non-subscriber messages have
     been silently discarded;

   * in the past three months, there have been about 100 legitimate
     messages from other people who Bush labelled as non-subscribers;

   * so we estimate that, in the last three months, Bush has silently
     discarded about 71 legitimate messages from other people. That's a
     rate of hundreds per year.

Bush doesn't say ``Your message didn't go through.'' Bush doesn't say
``Reply to this bounce to confirm your original message.'' He simply
throws the message away.

This is supposed to be the mailing list for an open IETF working group.
It's outrageous that valid messages are being silently discarded---even
if the number is not as large as hundreds per year.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

P.S. Out of my twelve messages, the five that were silently discarded
are exactly the five that I would pick if I were a censor trying to bias
the DNSEXT decisions in favor of the BIND company. Coincidence, right?

P.P.S. Bush's mailing-list software doesn't cryptographically confirm
unsubscription requests. I kept my subscription address private until
Bush revealed it a few days ago. I'm working on obtaining a subscription
through an address that Bush doesn't know is connected to me.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 04:26:31 -0800

Dan,

Were you one of those kids who had trouble following directions?  Randy 
has given you a pretty plain solution that even my mother could follow 
(and my mother barely knows how to find the "on" button of a computer). 
  Join the list already.  How hard is that for a so-called mail guru?

Eliot

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)

Bernstein - I'm not surprised this is happening.  I've experimented with
your dns daemon and it is by far superior to the existing bind
implimentations.  So I'm frankly not very surprised Bush don't like your
posts.  But I will admit the behaviour is juvenile.  But again this should
not surprise us.

But to end this on a positive note - let me make clear I admire your work.

regards
joe baptista

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:13:26 -0600

Why not simply subscribe and resend?

As a maintainer of several lists, I can confirm what a royal pain it is to
deal with people posting from non-subscribed addresses.  I usually get 1-2 a
week as I'm sorting through the 10-15 SPAMs a day.  I'm sure I mistakenly
reject many of them.

Just my $.02 worth,

-Dave

-- 
David Frascone

                   My karma ran over my dogma

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:41:13 -0500

>   Join the list already.  How hard is that for a so-called mail guru?

there are valid reasons to post to a list when you're not subscribed,
or from a different address from the one you use for your subscription.

and it's not in the community's interest to ignore useful input.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:39:03 -0500

> Randy Bush. (See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous

in my experience, if you send mail to the list administrator
and say "please add [email-masked] as an address that is allowed
to post to this list", the problem goes away - for that list.

and no, I don't think that one should have to "say the secret magic words"
to make the right thing happen.    but it does seem to work in practice.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Ebersman)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:22:18 -0800

djb> I've sent twelve messages to the namedroppers mailing list this
djb> month.

Did I miss the announcement where the namedroppers mailing list was
on the IETF standards track?

--
			Paul

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:39:49 -0800

At 04:26 AM 2002-11-26, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Were you one of those kids who had trouble following directions?  Randy has given you a pretty plain solution that even my mother could follow (and my mother barely knows how to find the "on" button of a computer).  Join the list already.  How hard is that for a so-called mail guru?

No.  The list admin should add the unsubscribed address to the
list of "known email addresses".  See item 5 in:
  http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt

Kurt

---

From: Lawrence Greenfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:02:03 -0500

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
   Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:39:49 -0800
[...]
   No.  The list admin should add the unsubscribed address to the
   list of "known email addresses".  See item 5 in:
     http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt

It's getting more and more to the point that we should just centralize
all of the mailing lists. (Thus also centralizing archives and making
it harder for things to just get lost.)

I remember trying to post a comment to the tls-wg mailing list and
getting a bounce with no useful information about how to actual send
my message without subscribing. So I replied to the bounce, hoping to
get a person who could help me in some way. It bounced. I gave up,
which was unfortunate since I was trying to correct a misunderstanding
about how many application protocols actual use TLS.

Larry

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:10:40 -0800

At 07:39 AM 11/26/2002 -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>The list admin should add the unsubscribed address to the

that's one of the list admin's options. But it turns out that many list
admins consider adding a name to a list unbidden is impolite, and choose to
not do this either, because they consider it error-prone and potentially
insecure. Simply adding the address doesn't check that it is an address
someone can send mail *to*, which is something someone replying to the list
expects, and it doesn't allow people to reliably trim the CC line - I can
usually remove email addresses from the CC line other than the alias
itself, and simply reply to the list, but in this case that would cut the
person out of the discussion. If there is a clear definition of a member
(for example, a member of the IAB), "known addresses" is a useful
work-around, but for a list participant, adding his email to the list is
pretty much de rigeur.

The list moderator asked him to add his email address to the list, and
indicated that as a result of doing so his mail would be unmoderated. Is it
so hard to do?

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:57:59 -0800

At 11:10 AM 2002-11-26, Fred Baker wrote:
>that's one of the list admin's options. But it turns out that many list admins consider adding a name to a list unbidden is impolite, and choose to not do this either, because they consider it error-prone and potentially insecure.

I think it could be easily argued that manual approval process is
far more error-prone than automated approval process and comes
with the most of the same security and "use" issues you discuss.

Anyways, if the admin really considers it impolite (I don't), then
maybe that admin should send the user an opt-in (or opt-out) notice
before (or after) adding the user to the pre-approved list of
posters.  (Note: for the subscribers list, the policy should be opt-in).
This is easily automated (most list management software supports
such).

>Is it so hard to do?

  echo [email-masked]' >> namedroppers.allowed-posters

is not hard at all.

Kurt

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2002 21:06:23 -0000

> Why not simply subscribe and resend?

How does that help namedroppers recover all the lost messages from
_other_ people? Bush has _sent_ 115 legitimate namedroppers messages
from non-subscribers in the last three months; how many has he _lost_?

> I'm sure I mistakenly reject many of them.

Do you _silently discard_ them? If the sender isn't monitoring the list,
how will he ever know that his message didn't go through? If he _is_
monitoring the list, how long is he supposed to wait before complaining?

Bush imposed his mailing-list control methods without IESG approval, in
violation of RFC 2418, section 3.2. He has been caught engaging in
content-based censorship several times:

   http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html

What's stopping him from selectively delaying or discarding messages
that he doesn't like? How can we tell whether these were actually
``mistakes''?

Manual reviews are completely inappropriate for a standardization forum.
They allow uncontrolled abuse, even when they aren't exacerbated by a
lack of notification to the sender.

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:19:22 -0800

Keith,
I almost agree with you... Except here is the problem...

The [email-masked] mailing list has 17 request(s) waiting for your
consideration at:

	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/admindb/ipoverib

I'll go ahead and remove the 17 messages trying to sell sex, toner
cartridges, stuff in char sets I don't even know what they are...

No I don't want random people sending stuff to a low volume list ( a
couple messages a week is normal ) so I think asking people to subscribe
is a low overhead task... You don't even have to receive the mail
traffic.

It is also not in the communities interest to slog through 100's of
spams to find a usefull nugget of truth either.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:41 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: D. J. Bernstein; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

>   Join the list already.  How hard is that for a so-called mail guru?

there are valid reasons to post to a list when you're not subscribed, or
from a different address from the one you use for your subscription.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:43:20 -0800

At 11:57 AM 11/26/2002 -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>posters.

How does that differ from what was requested?

>   echo [email-masked]' >> namedroppers.allowed-posters

Neither is

         echo subscribe [email-masked]' | mail namedroppers-request <at> 
ops.ietf.org

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:40:25 -0800

>How does that differ from what was requested?

Pre-approved lists continues to allow IETF'ers to post to IETF
lists without having to be subscribed or suffer through the
error-prone, distribution delay inducing, and list admin's time
consuming processes some list admins have forced upon us.

Kurt

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:42:42 -0800

> consuming processes some list admins have forced upon us.

like what i call "do-gooder software", when you guess correctly,
no one ever says thanks.  but guess wrongly once, and you get
screamed at forever.

so my personal method is to let the user act on their own behalf
and to respond to explicit written requests.  that way, the worst
error i can make is cut and paste, and even that has gotten me in
trouble on occasion.

but ymmv, and that's what makes the world go 'round.

randy

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:43:31 -0800

At 03:42 PM 2002-11-26, Randy Bush wrote:
>and to respond to explicit written requests.

Assuming this provides a means for the user can make an explicit
request to opt-in to a list of "known email addresses", great
(DJB should opt-in).

If not, why have you chosen not to implement guideline 5 in
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt?
It seems to me that following this guideline would significant
reduce the number of administrative errors and hopefully allow
the community to re-focus on technical issues.

Kurt

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:48:28 -0800

> request to opt-in to a list of "known email addresses", great

i think about 472 people have said that already.  i guess that this
is a great leap forward for ietf progress in forming internet
technology.

randy

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:48:19 -0800

At 04:48 PM 2002-11-26, Randy Bush wrote:
>i think about 472 people have said that already.

I took recent statements on this list as indicating that
namedroppers used the senders address to determine what
might be spam but didn't have a separate list of
"known email addresses" which mail from is assumed to be
non-spam.

Thanks for clarifying that such a separate list does exist
for namedroppers and that the user simply needs to explicitly
request addition to it for his messages to be considered
non-spam.

Kurt

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:44:57 -0500

> error i can make is cut and paste, and even that has gotten me in

no, the worst error you can make is to refuse to forward valuable
input to working groups.  and furthermore you've known about this
problem for years and stubbornly insisted that you had a right
to impose your arbitrary constraints on working group operation,
in violation of established rules and policies.

Keith

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 05:24:44 +0000

> ..., the worst error you can make is to refuse to forward valuable
> input to working groups. ...

speaking as one whose namedroppers articles have never been lost or rejected,
and as someone who remembers how much spam was broadcast through namedroppers
before randy began moderating it, my only complaint is that randy's method
sometimes introduces latency.  some discussions are improved by high latency,
others are hurt by it.  if we're going to have latency i'd like it to only
occur in discussions that will be improved by it.  if discrimination of that
kind is not possible, then i'd prefer no human-induced moderation latency.
a simple "fully verified opt-in" mailing system, as supported in free tools
like mailman and (modern) majordomo, do fine at keeping spam out.

> ... and furthermore you've known about this problem for years and
> stubbornly insisted that you had a right to impose your arbitrary
> constraints on working group operation, in violation of established rules
> and policies.

i'm not an ietf process expert.  isn't moderating the list randy's perogative
as WG chair?
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:31:01 -0500

> isn't moderating the list randy's perogative as WG chair?

excluding relevant input is not the perogatie of the chair.

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 15:58:32 -0000

Once again: Bush is (1) subjecting a huge number of legitimate messages
to manual review and (2) silently discarding many of these legitimate
messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine).

Both #1 and #2 are unacceptable. I want the manual reviews _eliminated_.
If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear
explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention.

If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's
behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed.

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST)

[cc's trimmed]

Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to
say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a
separate 'bounced' list.  To whom would this suggestion best be directed?

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:49:47 -0500 (EST)

On 27 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> [ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
>   miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  your subscription address is
>   [email-masked], please post from it or
>   fix subscription your subscription address! ]
>

All you need to do is ONE of the following:
	Use the same subcription address and posting address
	Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters
		list.

> explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention.

The ONLY reason there is manual review is because you are not
addhearing to the protocol for posting to the mailing list.

> behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed.

Send text.

	Olafur

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:44:30 -0800

Michael,

Wednesday, November 27, 2002, 8:50:23 AM, you wrote:
Michael> [cc's trimmed]

Michael> Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to
Michael> say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a
Michael> separate 'bounced' list.  To whom would this suggestion best be directed?

Michael,

Are you offering to pay for the lifetime subsidy for this archive
service that you are suggesting?  The form of you suggestion means
that there is no limit to the number of messages that might need
archiving.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 23:24:47 -0000

Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
> Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters list.

Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to set them up
as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY DISCARDED. (Misdirecting
them to some obscure web page would have essentially the same effect.)

You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a whole
bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have also been listed
as coming from non-subscribers. How many more messages have been lost---
or deliberately thrown away by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED!

As for my own sender address [email-masked], Bush has already taken manual
action---but what he did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known 
addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription address on top of
all my messages to the list---shortly after I had informed him that I
kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge
unsubscription requests.

I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately explained by
stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by hand in the first place.
The only acceptable ways to process a message to a standardization
mailing list are

   (1) to immediately pass it through unchanged to the subscribers or
   (2) to immediately bounce it.

The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective standards. The
bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain the standards. The standards
must allow the sender to straightforwardly arrange for #1.

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:40:26 -0800

I don't know about others, but I use the IETF mailing list service to
manage the list.  If you want to send a message all it takes is a
subscribe, but please don't send me any e-mails... Very easy to do with
a Webpage...

This only guarantees that I won't see your mail and possibly make a
mistake, hopefully I don't make too many mistakes, but I am human

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Keith Moore'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

> couple messages a week is normal ) so I think asking people to
> subscribe is a low overhead task...

I understand where you are coming from, but too many IETF working
groups' output has suffered from lack of outside input.  Certainly it's
reasonable to expect frequent contributors to at least get on an
"allowed posters" list, but it's not reasonable to exclude occasional
input from others.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:32:37 -0500

> is a low overhead task...

I understand where you are coming from, but too many IETF working groups'
output has suffered from lack of outside input.  Certainly it's reasonable
to expect frequent contributors to at least get on an "allowed posters"
list, but it's not reasonable to exclude occasional input from others.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:40:35 -0500

> indicated that as a result of doing so his mail would be unmoderated. Is it

frankly, it's ridiculous to expect people to subscribe to every list to which they
wish to contribute.

for example, if there were a working group trying to break IPv4 so that simple
unauthenticated IPv4-enabled light switches could exist, it would be quite
reasonable for people outside that group to want to make comments to that
group to discourage them from breaking IP or apps that use IP.  those outside
contributors should not have to be subjected to mail about how great it will be
when those apps are broken but we have IP-enabled light switches.

Keith

p.s. yes this group does exist, and their documents are before the IESG.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:50:07 -0500 (EST)

I am not on the ietf or iesg list. I don't know if this will go through to
those lists.

While DJB may also have some subscription issue, that is not the
fundamental problem.

It seems from your comments below, that you think that Randy isn't
manually blocking/forwarding messages from subscribed addresses. However,
that it not true.

The real problem is that Randy sometimes don't post messages from people
he doesn't like or on topics he has an interest in, even when they are
posted from subscribed addresses.  This has happened to me several times.
One of the occasions where it happened to me is documented on Bernstein's
web page.  It has probably happened many more times that haven't made it
on DJB's webpage.

There seems to be no reason that Randy should set himself up as a
moderator, or any reason whatsoever there should be any manual
intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

		--Dean

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:

> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
>

---

From: "John M. Brown" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:47:21 -0700

Dan, sounds like a plan.  I say all messages from
Bernstein be handled via his option #2

Can we please BOUNCE all of Dr. Bernsteins email with
the correct procedure, in the bounce message, on how
to subscribe and be a participating member of the list
instead of bitching and wasting time.

If you have specific complaints about the List Manager
then forward them, in private, to the NomCom.

This list is NOT the place for this bitch fest.

Now lets get back to something more important like
arguing over DNS SEC. ;)

Jeesh, what a waste...

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of D. J. Bernstein
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to
> set them up as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY
> DISCARDED. (Misdirecting them to some obscure web page would
> have essentially the same effect.)
>
> You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a
> whole bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have
> also been listed as coming from non-subscribers. How many
> more messages have been lost--- or deliberately thrown away
> by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED!
>
> As for my own sender address [email-masked], Bush has already
> taken manual action---but what he did was _not_ adding the
> address to a list of known
> addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription
> address on top of all my messages to the list---shortly after
> I had informed him that I kept _that_ address private to
> limit the number of people who can forge unsubscription requests.
>
> I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately
> explained by stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by
> hand in the first place. The only acceptable ways to process
> a message to a standardization mailing list are
>
> The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective
> standards. The bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain
> the standards. The standards must allow the sender to
> straightforwardly arrange for #1.
>
> ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of
> Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of
> Illinois at Chicago
>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to
> [email-masked] with the word 'unsubscribe'
> in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:23:22 +0100

> intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

The lack of transparency smacks of impropriety. I see this list well served
with some moderation. I do not see it benefit from unfettered solo activity
with no external checks and balances.

'Trust me' does not apply here.

To resolve this I suggest a page with any articles that have been refused
for whatever reason. Randy?

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:27:25 -0500 (EST)

> manually blocking/forwarding messages from subscribed addresses. However,

As of early this year the policy of the list was changed from
"moderation" to "subscriber automated posting".
Bringing up ancient history is not productive as that issue has
been addressed.

Randy is currently wasting valuable time in manually scanning
100+ spams a day that are sent to namedroppers and other IETF mailing
lists he runs and we all should thank him for the good citizen service
he provides!
Every meesage that is reposted from the bounced list contains a header
explaining that posting address is not a subscribed address.

I agree that the feature to get a message back saying that a message is
waiting for manual moderation is good, it requires effort for the
list operator to set up. In my personal case I get few of these messages
each month in response to viral attempts to post messages as me on
random mailing lists.

> web page.  It has probably happened many more times that haven't made it

Ancient history.

> intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

Yes, this is the CURRENT list policy. Thus the only messages that
are affected are from non subscribers and people posting from
different address.

In response the some points raised in this thread two changes
will happen:
 - Montly namedroppers list policy message will contain statement on
	the posting policy.
 - Moderated messages will contain more informative instructions
   on how to avoid moderation.

	Olafur (DNSEXT co-chair)

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:26:03 -0600

Thus spake "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
<[email-masked]>
> separate 'bounced' list.  To whom would this suggestion best be directed?

1.  Many WG lists themselves aren't archived, but you want to force bounced
messages to be?  Are you ready to pay for this?

2.  The volume of spam in a bounced-messages archive would quickly change
your mind.

3.  All of this would be easily solved by someone (e.g. IETF secretariat)
providing list service for all WGs with a consistent policy.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:20:45 -0600

Thus spake "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
> excluding relevant input is not the perogatie of the chair.

I've seen no claims to date that Randy has dropped any posts from anyone who
has followed the documented process.  If DJB refuses to follow the opt-in
policy for namedroppers, it is not the IETF/IESG's problem -- it's DJB's.

I think it was an error in Randy's judgement for him to have manually
forwarded some of DJB's posts; he should have dropped them all until DJB
chose to follow the process like everyone else on namedroppers.

S