On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Joe Touch wrote:
I considered some of the solutions the IETF is recommending, and
rejected the "closed list" requirement because we (and I believe many
IETF mailing lists) have too many members that have preferred delivery
addresses that aren't correlated to their source address.
While empathetic to the issue I'm not as sympathetic as you.
In general, people who have multiple email addresses and actually *use*
multiple email addresses know a little something about how email works.
This is a necessity since I would assert it is not possible to
effectively *use* multiple email addresses without keeping track of
which email address is for what purpose.
With that in mind, when a mechanism that delays submissions from
non-subscribers is first employed, some number of people will "trip"
over it. They usually whine about it but once the rules are explained
to them they realize they do have a responsibility to pay attention to
how they use their email.
Once they "get it" the "issue" passes and everything runs smoothly. If
needed, people can have multiple email addresses authorized to submit
messages. All modern list applications support this feature. It's a
one time configuration step for a list owner and then, once again, the
"issue" passes and everything runs smoothly.
I disagree that it is onerous to require an originator to pay attention
to how they originate their email. In any case the penalty for getting
it wrong is delay, not censorship (at least in the case of the IETF
guidelines). The benefits of employing such a mechanism far outweigh
the consequences, in my opinion.
On the other side, cross-posting is the canonical example of what can
quickly become an overwhelming job for the "spam monitor" when such a
mechanism is employed. There is no easy solution to this problem, if in
fact it really is a problem. One could argue it shouldn't be, i.e., a
discussion may start on more than one list but at least in the IETF if
it is a substantive discussion it should find itself *a* home. List
owners can make this so if they choose regardless.
Of course the IETF could deal with this issue itself quite simply by
centralizing the management of all its lists, since then it would have
access to a complete set of subscribers from all lists. Of course, that
solution has its own set of issues.
Responding to your other comments:
re #1) just because a post comes from a subscriber
doesn't ensure it is not spam (assume 'spam' is a
car advertisement, e.g., not a quality assessment
of a participant's post :-).
True, but the majority of "real spam" comes from effectively anonymous
sources. Also, a mailing list is quite good at policing itself
(especially in the IETF), so when a known person spams they are quickly
chastised.
re #2) potential spam should be just that (as indicated), but
one-day turnaround is too much work. posters should avoid
using spam trigger words (e.g., this option needs viagra)
And how is this different than requiring a poster to use the correct
originating email address in the first place? And how are they to know
what that triggers words are on a per list basis?
re #5) checking the list of known addresses needlessly
endorses a single solution. as shown above, there are others,
and it should be up to the list maintainer to decide what
to use
I disagree that the endorsement is "needless." We need to make it clear
what mechanisms are permitted. This mechanism is not required but it
is, in my opinion, the most straightforward to setup and manage.
Simplicity and ease of use are tantamount.
Also, the guidance does not exclude other mechanisms. If what you have
works I say go with it.
Jim
--
James M. Galvin <galvin@acm.org>