Subject: Re: precedence field and mailing lists

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:59:29 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>

> ...
> I still seem to be missing your point. Is it that you wish to change the
> IETF to be more like the AOL chat rooms? 

Exactly the opposite, assuming that my guess that AOL chat rooms (which
I've never seen directly) and modern netnews share some characteristics.

> Again, why are you posting to this group list if you do not
> respect its processes? If you are attempting to change something,
> then maybe I missed your proposal.

I thought I was clear about proposing that the IESG or whomever add those
nasty, evil, not entirely effective, sometimes harmful, anti-standard,
profane, deprecated, left-coast Precedence: Bulk lines in the hope of
reducing the plague of vacation noise.

Agreed; as Lloyd Wood and Keith Moore have pointed out, if people would
use vacation programs that didn't respond to Bcc's, then Precedence: bulk
would be redundant.  And yes, vacation programs that reply to bcc's cannot
be relied upon to get Precedence: bulk right.

If I've a second proposal, it would be that people who delude themselves
into thinking that talk every few months in a hotel ballroom or a mailing
list matters more than what happens in the outer of the world check their
Microsoft style provincialism--err--inward directedness for holes.

> --------------ms39C7FD79DED86BCF4C72DF45
> Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
> Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>
> MIIKVQYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIKRjCCCkICAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC
> ...

A third proposal is that people not send nearly 4K byte signature blocks
such as that one to 1000's of people (and 2 copies to me), particularly
in circumstances where they serve no conceivable good, except perhaps to
support by example my second proposal.  (Since Mr.  Royer's preceding
message did not consist mostly of cryptographic cybercrud, I assume this
was purely an accident instead of an effort to second my 2nd proposal.)

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:16 -0700

> reducing the plague of vacation noise.

Then write an internet draft and drive it through the IETF processes.
If people like it, they adopt it. So far I don't think that 'Precedence'
is a standard. If you want it to be an IETF standard (and you are sending
to the IETF list), then submit an internet draft.

> be relied upon to get Precedence: bulk right.

Exactly why we have this process. I as a user want ALL of the
senders of email (bcc'd to me and all) being notified of the fact that
I am on vacation. I don't see it as a bug. I might be in the minority or
you might be in the minority. Until there is a proposal - the correct
people will not debate the solution.

> Microsoft style provincialism--err--inward directedness for holes.

If you don't like the IETF process: (1) try to change it using
the rules, or (2) quit.

> was purely an accident instead of an effort to second my 2nd proposal.)

Perhaps you can write a draft to include user preferences in email.
In that way an MUA will not sent data you don't like. Unless of course
others think of those preferences as cybercrud. :-)

-Doug