Perhaps it would be helpful to consider that other lists have multiple persons who can handle such processing, and that all of those persons get the flagged message. Anyone in the administrative group can approve the message. An audit trail might be helpful, in this case. Such an audit trail would have to be read-only to the persons doing the administration, as well as readable to the public, who might wish to see that the administrators are properly handling messages. --Dean On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Thomas Narten wrote: > To clarify a bit, based on followup mail. > > AD hat was on in previous message, same here. I am not speaking for > the full IESG, however. > > It was not my intent to imply that if messages did not get forwarded > to one list, but did on another, that this somehow was OK and couldn't > be censorship. It is not OK. The messages at issue should have made it > out onto namedroppers. > > Regarding namedroppers mail processing: > > > 1) first run through spamassassin. Mail that is rejected here is not > > archived, as the number of such messages is large. All mail sent to > > mailing lists on the server hosting namedroppers is run though > > spamassassin, so this is not a namedroppers-specific > > procedure. > > Strictly speaking, the above is not permitted by the published spam > filtering guidelines. The issue isn't the use of spamassassin in front > of the list, but post-processing of rejected messages. The current > guidelines call for a human to manually approve the improperly flagged > rejections. I have started a process to see what can be done to > address the problem of rejections from spamassassin not being reviewed > by a human when sent to namedroppers. > > In the case at issue, however, I do not believe that the use of > spamassassin is the problem with the messages at issue. The > explanation I find most likely is that the messages were deleted in > haste rather than forwarded as they should have been after having been > flagged as possible spam since they came from a non-subscriber. > > Of course, it is also not possible to prove intention in this case. > Given that I have seen no compelling evidence that suggests a desire > or intent to censor anyone on the list, I chose not to read such an > intent in the cases at issue here. But of course, there is no way to > prove one way or the other. > > Thomas > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/> >