> ..., the worst error you can make is to refuse to forward valuable > input to working groups. ... speaking as one whose namedroppers articles have never been lost or rejected, and as someone who remembers how much spam was broadcast through namedroppers before randy began moderating it, my only complaint is that randy's method sometimes introduces latency. some discussions are improved by high latency, others are hurt by it. if we're going to have latency i'd like it to only occur in discussions that will be improved by it. if discrimination of that kind is not possible, then i'd prefer no human-induced moderation latency. a simple "fully verified opt-in" mailing system, as supported in free tools like mailman and (modern) majordomo, do fine at keeping spam out. > ... and furthermore you've known about this problem for years and > stubbornly insisted that you had a right to impose your arbitrary > constraints on working group operation, in violation of established rules > and policies. i'm not an ietf process expert. isn't moderating the list randy's perogative as WG chair? -- Paul Vixie