Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
...
> 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?
...

As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists
for several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a
requirement.  The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte
or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes
keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition.

(Much of the viral spam I see bears the forged addresses
of legitimate subscribers, so I have to resort to other
mechanisms to keep the lists clean.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:40:50 -0500 (EST)

I agree that a size limit would be appropriate, especially if it also
applied to the main list, but maybe even if it did not.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Randy Presuhn wrote:

> ....
> ....

-- 
		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 warm here.<--

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:11:56 -0500 (EST)

I second this. If some WG wants to maintain such a bounced list, that's
fine, but there isn't sufficient reason for it to be a requirement.

It's too bad that the exponentially increasing volume of spam has such
corrosive effect but that is the reality. Every IETF WG list I have
anything to do with has spam filtration and/or moderation of various
sorts. And I know exactly what the response from those who claim to
represent "openness" will be to this message. But the fact is that, for
the vast majority of IETF WG mailing lists, eliminating spam filtration
or moderation would greatly decrease participation and decrease input. I
don't give a damn about personal opinions that everyone should be able
to do their own high quality spam filtration and or be willing to "just
hit D".  I'm talking about reality and they don't. The minor additional
effort by those not subscribed to subscribe or get themselves added to
the can-post-but-not-subscribed-list or send the contribution to the WG
chair for posting is certainly a cost and may eliminate some input but
I'm satisfied from the consensus in WGs where this has been discussed
that these effects are dwarfed by the loss of input and participation
that would occur if filtration and moderation were eliminated.

Donald

PS: The namedroppers list is a special case because of persistent
attempts over a long period to use it for purposes outside of the
charter of the WG. Becasue of this, it has been found necessary by the
WG chairs for human judgement to be used more than on any other WG
mailing list. The ADs and IESG and IETF chair, who represent and are
selected by the IETF community, are and have for a long time been fully
aware of this. The periodic waves of complaint messages on the subject
posted to the IETF list are primarily a waste of everyone's time since
the policies are supported by the consensus in the working groups
involved.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST)
> From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

-- 
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:00:20 -0500

> charter of the WG.

might that be because the namedroppers list is seen as a descendant
of the namedroppers lists that has existed since circa 1980 as a  
general forum for name service discussion?

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:29:43 -0500 (EST)

The policy of namedroppers is posted to the list monthly. No one can 
claim they do not know that policy. I do not see much relavence to what 
the policy of a mailing list with the same "user name" at a different 
host 22 years ago was. You are grasping at staws.

Donald

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Keith Moore wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:00:20 -0500
> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:25:17 -0500

> host 22 years ago was. You are grasping at staws.

perhaps not, but in some circles it is common wisdom that if you want
to start a new working group, it needs a new mailing list, in order
to discourage hold-over discussions from the old lists.

Keith

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:47:46 -0800

>>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST), Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]> said:

Randy> As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists for
Randy> several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a
Randy> requirement.  The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte
Randy> or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes
Randy> keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition.

I think the proper solution here is to use proper tools rather than to
impose another burden on the list administrators.  Mailing management
has come a long way in the last few years.  The easiest package I've
seen for administrative purposes is probably the mailman package,
which is being used by a very very wide range of Internet groups.  As
an example, all of the SourceForge mailing list software is managed by
mailman.

I strongly encourage the use of a more intuitive mail package like
mailman.  I've managed many mailing lists with it, ranging in size
from a few people to > 5000 and I must say that it makes
administration easy.  Moderated lists, or subscriber-only lists are
more easily taken care of because list administrators just have to
click on a button that says "reject" or "accept" or "discard".  The
nice thing about the reject action is that it sends back text to the
user saying what the problem was and how they can likely correct it.
IE, the complaint that started this huge thread (dropped problems as
opposed to a properly worded response going back) are generally taken
care of by the software, not the administrator, which is important.
It's so easy to use that my Dad can and does use it, who knows nothing
about SMTP, sendmail, aliases, unix, postfix, ...  I'm sure Randy Bush
will have no trouble with it.  It's only disadvantage is that it's
heavily web based, which will probably make a few people groan.
However, it would be rather trivial to write a mail-based,
script-based, or other wrapper around it if that was the only problem
with it.

IMHO, it's long past the time that the IETF should have a centralized
mail management system where lists can be (not forced to be, of
course) centrally created and yet still managed by individual list
authors.  The ops area has been doing this for a while, but I think it
makes sense for the main organization to host this instead if possible
(yes, I do realize that a server and bandwidth would have to be
donated to the cause).  It's all the small administrative issues like
this that detract us from real work on real protocols.  Let's fix this
at the global level, please.  Sourceforge hosts > 51,700 projects most
of which have multiple mailing lists associated with them.  We should
learn from their experiences.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:24:19 -0500 (EST)

> authors.

yup - and its been the case for quite a while

Scott