Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:58:57 +0100 (CET)

> 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).

The folks that are willing to go through piles of spam to find the non-spam
emails from non-subscribers do us a tremedous service, since it allows
cross-postings across WGs (which is important to help with coordination of
the IETF work IMHO), without subjecting the rest of us to spam.

Requiring those folks to take the initiative to add folks to the mailing
list has the issues others have pointed out (about guessing the intent)
and is also putting the burden on folks I think we should reward for
filtering spam. If folks need to post all the time from a different 
address than their subscription address *they* should take the step to
get that posting address added to the approved posters list.

  Erik

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:17:56 -0500

> If folks need to post all the time from a different

that might be fine, except

- in the current situation, even postings from occasional posters 
  are being blocked.  and when postings are blocked, the message is 
  terse and cryptic (even insulting) and contains no clue about how 
  to workaround the problem

- getting on the "approved posters" list is not well documented or
  understood.  for some list software this is a manual operation 
  requiring the list admin to edit a file; on others it is under
  control of the subscriber but he/she has to "subscribe" the alternate
  address using some obscure option like /NOMAIL.
 
I've run several IETF lists myself and I know how much of a pain it
is to filter out spam.  Yes, the process is error prone.  Yes it's 
a pain to keep approving posts from the same person (though it's 
easy to fix that problem, and no I don't think adding that person
to an approved posters lists is assuming too much).  And yet I still
don't think that namedroppers is being managed appropriately.

Can we please fix this problem which has gone on for several years
and stop pretending that this behavior is acceptable?

Keith

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:02:18 -0800

Ok... I have to know...

Randy,

Can you please put [email-masked] on the approved posters list for
namedroppers ?

Isn't it as simple as that ?

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 10:18 AM
To: Erik Nordmark
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued 

 
I've run several IETF lists myself and I know how much of a pain it is
to filter out spam.  Yes, the process is error prone.  Yes it's 
a pain to keep approving posts from the same person (though it's 
easy to fix that problem, and no I don't think adding that person to an
approved posters lists is assuming too much).  And yet I still don't
think that namedroppers is being managed appropriately.

Can we please fix this problem which has gone on for several years and
stop pretending that this behavior is acceptable?

Keith

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:51:02 +0100

>and stop pretending that this behavior is acceptable?

1. djb cannot post on namedroppers ultimately because of the spam,.
2. he must be on a special list because he is of the IETF but not of that 
specific WG.
3. this is accepted as a limitation of the IETF capacity

Before spam blocks IETF, would it not be a priority to discuss an RFC 
documenting:
- a serious anti-spam solution based on sender authentification
- a meta-mailing list concept: you register once to a meta IETF list and 
you can post on every WG?

Sounds like a survival issue?
jfc

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:38:29 +0100 (CET)

>   to workaround the problem

Do you have specific recent examples of this? If it is the case it needs to be
fixed.

>   address using some obscure option like /NOMAIL.

Perhaps in the case of namedroppers the added [ post by non-subscriber... ]
note can include the instructions on how to get added to that list.

  Erik