There is a process to have messages posted immediately, if what is being said is important and time critical, follow it. If it is not worth even the small amount of effort to do this, you probably do not have anything so incredibly important to say that it cannot wait. Personally, I thank the people who take the time to filter the list and keep it free of spam, it wastes the time of the subscribers to get these unwanted messages and, some of us (I suspect the vast majority) would rather not get them. If you are going to make an accusation of censorship, do so, but do not do so lightly. If you are not, then there really is no point to these messages, as it is unfortunate if a few messages are lost but, the alternative to not filtering the list is worse. That being said, I do find the examples you linked to in the original message interesting. Has anybody else experienced these problems? I especially find the earlier ones questionable as there should be no reason to edit an incoming message. -Daniel Pelstring ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> To: <ietf@ietf.org> Cc: <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 8:01 PM Subject: trying to sweep namedroppers mismanagement under the rug > Bill Strahm writes: > > I believe the problem is in your court > > That's patently absurd. It's not _my_ fault that a bunch of messages > from _other_ people are being silently discarded. > > (As I said before, there have been more than 100 messages in the past > three months on namedroppers labelled as coming from non-subscribers, > only a small fraction of those being mine. Furthermore, Bush has > silently discarded several of my recent messages. If we believe Bush's > claim that he isn't selectively targeting my messages, the only > reasonable conclusion is that he has silently discarded a huge number of > messages overall, only a small fraction being mine.) > > Most namedroppers contributors who don't post from subscription > addresses are, presumably, people who don't watch the list at all---for > example, people from other lists involved in cross-posted discussions. > How are they supposed to find out about the problem? > > I do tend to watch the list. I noticed the problem. I pointed it out. > That doesn't mean I'm the only person with the problem. > > If the problem is fixed _for me_, but not _for everybody_, then it > hasn't gone away. The procedures are still broken. Legitimate messages > to namedroppers---potentially quite valuable messages---continue to be > thrown away. > > ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, > Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago > >