On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, James M Galvin wrote: > I disagree that it is onerous to require an originator to pay attention > to how they originate their email. This presumes that the originator has control over how they appear in headers. My mail headers get rewritten, and not by me; my subscribe address (if using a listserver) will not be a perfect match with my From: address. And so on. Holding originators responsible for any changes resulting from local mail policies is a bit much. > In any case the penalty for getting > it wrong is delay, not censorship (at least in the case of the IETF > guidelines). in which case, a number of people would be consistently penalised with every post they make. This would discourage them from participating. > 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. oh, this has done a lot to suppress Peter Lewis of Upperside. > 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? filters for each list should be published. If the list manager is going to tell me about the subscription details when I join or at the start of each month (why aren't the dates staggered? must cause a traffic spike) it can tell me about filtering keywords and policy then too, with a pointer to retrieve current info on same. Any filterer knows that individual words aren't much good. You have to block on phrases and on signatures of bulk mailers... > 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. Simplciity and ease of use for the _list members_ is tantamount. That's a slightly different thing, but the distinction is important. L. <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
