> From: "Stephen Sprunk" > While I disagree with Dean in general and also with most of his current > argument, I think it is a reasonable request that IETF "officials" be given > an @ietf.org email alias and that those aliases be published for use in > situations such as this. Exactly what is this situation? Why can't Mr. Anderson say whatever he needs to say to Mr. Austein here or via a relevant working group mailing list? > It's probably going too far to require sending mail from those aliases; > despite Dean's faults, he's smart enough to use the published alias if he > gets a bounce from someone's personal or work address. How would Mr. Anderson use a private IETF alias belonging to Mr. Austein? If sending a polite, IETF-relevant private message from one IETF participant were important to Mr. Anderson, he would have long since sent his message in public via an IETF mailing list. Any complaints or other thoughts Mr. Anderson has about a working group, an AD, other IETF participants, or whatever would have long since been forwarded via a friend, sent to this mailing list, the IAB, or via the official appeals process. There is an important issue here separate from Mr. Anderson's concerns. Why hasn't Mr. Anderson been told to say whatever he wants to say in an IETF mailing lists or to the relevant IETF role accounts? Why has the notion that individuals have rights enforced by IETF rules to send private mail to other IETF participants been consistently supported or at least never refuted? Mr. Alvestrand's recent message only disavows the IETF's interest private filters. What RFC imposes an obligation to receive private (not to mention unfriendly) mail on ADs, WG chairs, or any IETF participants? Private IETF aliases for IETF officials would be invitations for harassment and abuse, and it is important that IETF participation not be contingent on tolerating harassment or abuse. Harassment and abuse must be defined by the targets of mail for deciding whether to accept future private messages. IETF participants must be allowed their own definitions of acceptable private mail, no matter how wrong they seem to mail senders or third parties. Filtering messages to IETF mailing lists is justifiably controversial, but private mailboxes are none of the IETF's business, and not merely because of scaling problems. I care about this issue because other individual IETF and ASRG participants have threatened or started attacks on me similar to Mr. Anderson's attack on Mr. Austein, because my mail systems are configured to reject their private (not sent via IETF reflectors) mail. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf