Subject: Subscriptions to "ietf-honest"

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:35:35 -0400

I was auto-subscribed to Dean's "ietf-honest" mailing
list, and I'm unhappy about it.  I don't know what his
current status is with regard to the [email-masked]
mailing list but I think he's pretty clearly abusing
this mailing list by snagging names from it and
putting us on his mailing list without asking.  I'm also
not thrilled that the "welcome" message he sends out
fails to clearly identify who's sending it and that
he does not represent the IETF.  This is a small problem
but a problem nonetheless.

Melinda

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:46:54 -0400

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:35:35 -0400

> but a problem nonetheless.
It's happened to me twice, with two different lists of his.  I've
complained to him, but to no avail.  I wonder if the CAN SPAM act
applies.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:52:37 -0400

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 05:35:35PM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:

> putting us on his mailing list without asking.  

He also refuses to allow WG chairs to unsubscribe.  If you
unsubscribe, he re-subscribes you.  Some people apparently don't have
enough to do.

My answer to this has been to send all mail from that list into
/dev/null, and to avoid otherwise talking about the topic.  I have
discovered that this has salubrious effects on blood pressure
readings.  I know someone else who simply refuses all traffic sourced
from inside a certain AS associated with Mr Anderson; that person
seems more cheerful for the effort, too.  I realise that this is by no
means a robust data set from which one might draw conclusions, but
it's already more than I want to know about Mr Anderson and his
relations to others.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Daniel Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:55:14 -0400

> complained to him, but to no avail.  I wonder if the CAN SPAM act

    Unfortunately, no, thanks to (deliberate?) loopholes and
shortfalls of the bill.  The bill actually does not require prior
permission, only a way out and some other ridiculous minimums.  When
it was written and passed, Congress told the FTC to report within 24
months on the effectiveness; in their report, they recommended no
changes.  Makes you wonder if they even paid any attention, or just
clicked a box on a Congress intranet website poll.

    There was a decent article in Wired(1) shortly after the bill came
through.  Just looked it up for your reference now.  Interesting read,
just over five years later, to see how things have actually gotten
worse since this took "effect."

    [1]  http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/01/62020

-- 
</Daniel P. Brown>
[email-masked] || [email-masked]
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
50% Off All Shared Hosting Plans at PilotPig: Use Coupon DOW10000

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:02:50 -0400

Fred Baker wrote:
> well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list 
> that has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members 
> as he chooses?

I received a "welcome" message addressed to me
individually, which included the following:
     You were probably added to this list because you participated in
     [email-masked] discussion,

and the following:
     Ordinary
     IETF members should feel free to unsubscribe from this list if they
     choose. IETF representatives (e.g. Working Group Chairs) have a duty
     to the  corporation to read email sent to them on IETF business, and
     should not try to unsubscribe.

so yes, he actually did that.

> Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and 
> desist letter?

I hadn't thought about that, to be honest.  While
clearly he can plow through archives to get addresses
I don't think he should be allowed to subscribe to
IETF mailing lists while he's doing this.

Melinda

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:27:49 -0700

> complained to him, but to no avail.  I wonder if the CAN SPAM act

IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly multiply and 
possibly even with sanctions.  As noted, this is a relatively tricky topic, but 
I am still pretty sure he goes far beyond the limits it defines.

Might be interesting to explore legal actions, on the theory that his activities 
have continuing negative impact on IETF work.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Michael Loftis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:31:07 -0600

> complained to him, but to no avail.  I wonder if the CAN SPAM act

I think so, specifically the provisions AGAINST sending mail to a harvested 
email address.

---

From: Michael Loftis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:34:13 -0600

--On March 23, 2009 4:31:07 PM -0600 Michael Loftis <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> I think so, specifically the provisions AGAINST sending mail to a
> harvested email address.

Also it doesn't qualify as "relationship" messages since Dean is not a 
sanctioned part of the IETF, WG, or otherwise.  I don't even know if he's a 
member and even if he was that does not mean anything in this context I 
believe (IANAL though)

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:24:56 -0400

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> IANAL but my impression is that it definitely does apply, possibly 
> multiply and possibly even with sanctions.  As noted, this is a 
> relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far beyond 
> the limits it defines.

It seems to me (and I am SO not a lawyer) that that he
doesn't allow some people to unsubscribe ought to be
a legal problem right there.

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:37:35 -0700 (PDT)

FWIW, I have been subscribed twice and have successfully unsubscribed twice.
If it happens again I'll install an SMTP level block.

				Ned

P.S. I have no opinion about the applicability (or lack thereof) of can-spam to
this. It's been too long since I read the law.

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Mar 2009 01:34:37 -0000

>multiply and possibly even with sanctions.

Unfortunately CAN SPAM only applies to commercial, transactional, and
relationship mail, and the mail in question doesn't appear to fall
into any of those categories.

On the other hand, given the long, long history of abusive and
disruptive behavior, perhaps it's time for a regular cease and desist
from the IETF's lawyer.

R's,
John

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:11:31 -0700

On 23-Mar-2009, at 14:52, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> I know someone else who simply refuses all traffic sourced
> seems more cheerful for the effort, too.

r1.owls#show ip access-list from-world
Extended IP access list from-world
     10 deny ip 198.3.136.0 0.0.3.255 any (44 matches)
     20 deny ip 130.105.0.0 0.0.255.255 any (415 matches)
     30 permit ip any any (11991821 matches)
r1.owls#

Thanks for the T-shirt by the way, whoever left it at reception for  
me. I appreciate it :-)

Joe

---

From: Todd Glassey CISM CIFI <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:17:12 -0700

Melinda Shore wrote:
> list, and I'm unhappy about it.
Sorry Melinda - boy are your wrong - and you need to know that you may 
need to get legal advice on this - because you nor anyone else here owns 
their own IP addresses anymore... you gave them away to the IETF when 
you submitted them to the IETF under the NoteWell provisions.

I personally warned the IETF that the Mailing Lists were included in the 
NoteWell licensing and that anyone operation of a Mailing List form the 
IETF's would constitute a Derivative Work of that Publication several 
years ago.

> I don't know what his
Yeah,  NO HE IS NOT - the NoteWell rules specifically allow that - and 
they CANNOT BE RETROACTIVELY CHANGED  - but its amusing that you think 
they don't.  The EMAIL Addresses in any IETF mailing list are fair game 
for ANYONE under the IETF's idiotic ANY and ALL USES proviso - but hey...
> I'm also
> he does not represent the IETF.  
So far this is the only complaint I think holds water...
> This is a small problem
Actually the problem is the IPR WG Management and its refusal to take 
notice of these issues such that they could be addressed before the IESG 
put those documents into production as the current-controlling contract 
instances. Now you and everyone else here has the problem that any 
mass-marketer can demand the IETF produce those mailing lists, for their 
use under NoteWell  or simply extract them and them turn the 
email-spigot on.

By the way - NoteWell conveyance of an Email Address would also control 
the ability to 'opt out' I am betting - my argument is that it 
eliminates it and that is based on the persistent any and all uses 
language - especially since the use of the mailing list would be in 
republishing IETF content - only this time its a mailing list header and 
the commercial content of the Spammer's

Nice move IPR-WG - I say you screwed the pooch just about as much as is 
possible here.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:25:50 -0400

> you submitted them to the IETF under the NoteWell provisions.

Todd, if you can't figure out the differences between
an IP address and an email address, delivering packets and
delivering email, well, I don't know.

And Dean's *not* "the IETF."  The IETF has some people
acting in designated capacities but Dean isn't one of
them.  I agreed to receive email from IETF mailing lists.
I did not agree to be put on any mailing list created by
any random crank with an axe to grind.

Melinda

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:44:27 -0400

> any random crank with an axe to grind.

Unfortunately, ignoring random cranks with an axe to grind seems to be
the only thing that helps.  Anything else just encourages them.  :-(

    	       	    	    	     	  - Ted

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:51:21 -0700

well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list  
that has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other  
members as he chooses?

You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite.  
Someone set up a mailing list that was subscribed to [email-masked] and  
filtered some of our more interesting personalities. Folks that  
subscribed to it go a feed without the comments of (or replies to)  
those individuals. Many moved their subscriptions.

On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:19:13 -0700 (PDT)

I think he added the ietf list as a whole. When I tried to
unsubscribe it said I needed a password which it never sent,
so I assume I am not "on" his list the strict sense.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Fred Baker wrote:

> well, question. Did he actually do that, or did he make a mailing list that
> has one member - the IETF list - to which he can add other members as he
> chooses?
> 
> You may recall that at some point in the past we had the opposite. Someone set
> up a mailing list that was subscribed to [email-masked] and filtered some of
> our more interesting personalities. Folks that subscribed to it go a feed
> without the comments of (or replies to) those individuals. Many moved their
> subscriptions.
> 
> Are you asking the Trust, or the IETF leadership, to send a cease and desist
> letter?
>

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:53:04 -0700 (PDT)

I was subscribed and was able to unsubcribe w/o any difficulties so as to 
make the experience memorable. I would much prefer to not have been 
bothered.

I recall very fondly the list filtered relay Fred mentions ... 
unfortunately, one day it just stopped functioning w/o warning.

Dave Morris

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:29:22 -0700

The newly minted RFC 5429 offers a solution:

if envelope :domain :contains "from" ["av8.net", "av8.com",  
"iadl.org"] {
     ereject "go away"; stop;
}

-- Kurt

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:34:10 -0700

On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> relatively tricky topic, but I am still pretty sure he goes far  
> beyond the limits it defines.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt

The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic  
mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial  
advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service  
(including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial  
purpose).  The term "commercial electronic mail message" does not  
include a transactional or relationship message.

Transactional or relationships include:
a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing  
commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the  
recipient of products or services offered by the sender;  (iv) to  
provide information directly related to an employment relationship or  
related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved,  
participating, or enrolled;
....
where:
  It is the sense of Congress that -
(1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who distribute  
pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and introduce viruses,  
worms, and Trojan horses into personal and business computer systems;  
and
(2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement  
tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e- 
mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the  
tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18 (relating to fraud  
and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18 (relating to obscenity);  
chapter 110 of title 18 (relating to the sexual exploitation of  
children); and chapter 95 of title 18 (relating to racketeering), as  
appropriate.

CAN-SPAM also limits legal standing to network providers and law  
enforcement.

Since the IETF distributes email-addresses of subscribers, rather than  
obscuring them, when email-addresses are obtained from received  
messages that relate to some ongoing issue, this would not be  
harvesting.  It is not uncommon to even see emails that ask why you  
unsubscribed.  As long as the email relates to a prior relationship,  
it would be difficult to make a strong case, especially when the IETF  
is complicit in the distribution of the email-addresses.  One might  
even ask why are these email-addresses included if it would be illegal  
to respond to these addresses.

Unless the emails are deceptive in some way, CAN-SPAM does not seem to  
apply.  Perhaps the IETF may reconsider obscuring email-addresses.

-Doug

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:10:04 -0700

> list, and I'm unhappy about it.

As I think was mentioned a day or two ago on this list, the reasonable  
way I found to avoid these auto-subscriptions to ietf-honest was to  
block packets from the originating network. I had a very enjoyable few  
days following the installation of those packet filters.

However, it now seems that (a) any address I've used in the past is  
now fair game, and not just the addresses I'm using today, and (b)  
it's not just the ietf list, but working group lists too, e.g. see  
below. I don't have the same ability to do server-side filtering or  
packet blocking on other mail accounts.

I have lost my sense of humour about this. It's hard to see this as  
anything other than a systematic attempt to disrupt IETF activities.

I am generally capable of taking care of my own mail abuse problems,  
but I'm annoyed that I have to, and I'm annoyed that the pool of  
volunteer hours available to the IETF to get work done is being  
deliberately eroded by someone whose current and past behaviour, to  
me, seems to have little intent other than to waste peoples' time.

If there's a way for the IETF leadership, or the IETF secretariat, or  
some other centralised body to take some initiative here and reduce  
the disruption for the benefit of all those trying to get work done, I  
at least would appreciate it.

Joe

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 25 March 2009 09:43:27 PDT
> To: jabley@(redacted)
> Subject: Welcome to the "Dnsop-honest" mailing list
>
> Welcome to the [email-masked] mailing list!
>
> This mailing list is for IETF DNSOP WG members to discuss IETF
> business without improper censorship.  It does not represent the IETF
> but does represent some IETF members.
>
> This list was created by IADL.ORG (www.iadl.org) because of dishonest
> filtering by the IESG.  See http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch for more
> information on the corrupt activities of officials of the Internet
> Society, Inc (ISOC) IETF Activity, and their connection to other
> corrupt activities.
>
> [email-masked] discussion, and that list is used to determine
> consensus for ISOC IETF Activity actions. Consensus is a democratic
> activity of the ISOC, which is a U.S. non-profit, tax exempt
> membership corporation. ALL members of the ISOC IETF have a property
> right to participate in its democratic decision processes.   [see U.S.
> v. Local 560, extortion (Hobbs Act) and racketeering by mafia that
> took over a Union and tried to prevent participation by those opposing
> the mafia]
>
> Email sent to this list will be forwarded to [email-masked].  Ordinary
> To post to this list, send your email to:
>
>  [email-masked]
>
> General information about the mailing list is at:
>
>  http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop-honest
>
> If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to
> or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your
> subscription page at:
>
>  http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/options/dnsop-honest/jabley%40ca.afilias.info
>
>
> You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to:
>
>  [email-masked]
>
> with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the
> quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions.
>
> You must know your password to change your options (including changing
> the password, itself) or to unsubscribe.  It is:
>
>  ovbadeig
>
> Normally, Mailman will remind you of your lists.iadl.org mailing list
> passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you
> prefer.  This reminder will also include instructions on how to
> unsubscribe or change your account options.  There is also a button on
> your options page that will email your current password to you.

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:27:42 +0100

Joe Abley wrote:
> However, it now seems that (a) any address I've used in the past is now
> fair game, and not just the addresses I'm using today, and (b) it's not
> just the ietf list, but working group lists too, e.g. see below. I don't
> have the same ability to do server-side filtering or packet blocking on
> other mail accounts.

Seems he wants the core of the Internet to apply those filters...

>> Society, Inc (ISOC) IETF Activity, and their connection to other

Those are clear allegations of corruption. Isn't that what the IETF
calls an ad-hominum attack? Wasn't there something about that about
causing subscriptions to be able to be blocked etc?

>> took over a Union and tried to prevent participation by those opposing

Nice one, the IETF is compared to the Mafia.

>> [..] IETF representatives (e.g. Working Group Chairs) have a duty

And here it goes: as a WG chair you are not able to unsubscribe, you are
not even allowed to try. Nice Mafia-alike practice.

I didn't know that the IETF was incorporated btw. All news to me ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:45:38 -0700

> anything other than a systematic attempt to disrupt IETF activities.

It is my suspicion that the perpetrating gang is attempting to goad
volunteers into legal recourse.  I suspect this gang believes that
their actions will either cause IETF volunteers to create a legal
context for them to exploit (CAN SPAM suits), or that IETF's attempts
to filter or restrict access will create a legal context for them to
attack (the gang's leadership cites Exactis vs MAPS with fervor, which
I think they believe proves a network cannot restrict access to
itself).

"Heads we win, tails you lose."

Anyone who's ever participated in an Internet community knows the
score here.

There are trolls for whom ostracization from the community solves the
problem; they find another community to infect and become distracted.

There are trolls that never believed they were part of the community
to start with, bold adventurers or risk takers, individualists outside
the realm of conformity, lone rangers who must stand alone against a
tide of injustice.  Ostracization does not quiet their discomfort, it
justifies it.

The only thing I have seen work for this second category of troll is
to talk to their mother.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins

---

From: Michael Dillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:45:01 +0000

> I have lost my sense of humour about this. It's hard to see this as anything
> other than a systematic attempt to disrupt IETF activities.

Forget about exotic laws like CAN-SPAM. This systematic attempt to disrupt
IETF mailing lists should be enough to get a court injunction ordering him
to cease and desist. The Internet is irrelevant. The technology is irrelevant.

It would be interesting if IETF volunteers in Dean's jurisidiction
were to attempt
getting such an injunction on their own. Given that the activities disrupt the
list for all members, perhaps a single individual could get an injunction that
bars Dean from doing this at all.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:10:03 -0700

>to cease and desist. The Internet is irrelevant. The technology is irrelevant.

Let's step back and look at this differently.

   1. The mere act of using an email address on a public mailing list 
or any public area will result in that email address being a target 
for spam.  If you use the email address for one-to-one email 
exchanges only, it will still find its way onto a spam list.

   2. It is trivial to harvest the email addresses of IETF 
participants who have posted messages to an IETF-related mailing list.

   3. Mail servers generally have a feature to reject SMTP 
connections originating from an IP address or a domain.  Most mail 
clients have a filtering feature which allows a message to be disposed if:

     (i) email addresses in the author or recipient fields matches 
some criteria; or

    (ii) a specific word is found in the subject line.

   4. There will always be someone somewhere attempting to "disrupt 
IETF mailing lists".

If the problem discussed in this thread is about spam, it can be 
addressed by item 3.  There are also IETF mailing list policies to 
deal with spam if the problem is at the IETF's end.

By forwarding or quoting the questionable content, IETF participants 
are amplifying the message.  If a person is subject to an existing 
PR-Action, the best course of action is not to post the person's 
message to an IETF mailing list unless the content is relevant to the 
discussion.

It is better for the IETF to take legal action or send cease and 
desist letters as an action of last resort.  Such actions should not 
be used to put a stop to anti-social behavior as that only fuels the 
argument.  It might also send the wrong message.

Regards,
-sm