I second this. If some WG wants to maintain such a bounced list, that's fine, but there isn't sufficient reason for it to be a requirement. It's too bad that the exponentially increasing volume of spam has such corrosive effect but that is the reality. Every IETF WG list I have anything to do with has spam filtration and/or moderation of various sorts. And I know exactly what the response from those who claim to represent "openness" will be to this message. But the fact is that, for the vast majority of IETF WG mailing lists, eliminating spam filtration or moderation would greatly decrease participation and decrease input. I don't give a damn about personal opinions that everyone should be able to do their own high quality spam filtration and or be willing to "just hit D". I'm talking about reality and they don't. The minor additional effort by those not subscribed to subscribe or get themselves added to the can-post-but-not-subscribed-list or send the contribution to the WG chair for posting is certainly a cost and may eliminate some input but I'm satisfied from the consensus in WGs where this has been discussed that these effects are dwarfed by the loss of input and participation that would occur if filtration and moderation were eliminated. Donald PS: The namedroppers list is a special case because of persistent attempts over a long period to use it for purposes outside of the charter of the WG. Becasue of this, it has been found necessary by the WG chairs for human judgement to be used more than on any other WG mailing list. The ADs and IESG and IETF chair, who represent and are selected by the IETF community, are and have for a long time been fully aware of this. The periodic waves of complaint messages on the subject posted to the IETF list are primarily a waste of everyone's time since the policies are supported by the consensus in the working groups involved. On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:55:49 -0800 (PST) > From: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com> > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued > > Hi - > > > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:50:23 -0500 (EST) > > From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu> > > To: ietf@ietf.org > > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued > > In-Reply-To: <20021127155832.12772.qmail@cr.yp.to> > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10211271147380.7561-100000@spitfire.law.miami.edu> > ... > > Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think a good rule would be to > > say that all bounced messages on any IETF list MUST be archived on a > > separate 'bounced' list. To whom would this suggestion best be directed? > ... > > As someone who has maintained a couple of WG mailing lists > for several years, I'd object to the imposition of such a > requirement. The amount of spam, especially *large* (megabyte > or more) viral messages, directed at WG mailing lists makes > keeping all the trash a highly unattractive proposition. > > (Much of the viral spam I see bears the forged addresses > of legitimate subscribers, so I have to resort to other > mechanisms to keep the lists clean.) > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. SJC-1.3141 > randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street > Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA > ------------------------------------------------------ > My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > -- ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com