Re: Bot postings, was Re: Messages from the ietf list for the week ending Sun Oct 8 06:00:02 2023

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Rob,

I don't know how long you've been subscribed to the IETF main discussion list,
but the weekly summary statistics have been around for at least a decade if
not more. As others have pointed out, they used to be generated by Thomas Narten,
and the phrase "Narten Score" was occasionally used (as a joke) for some people
who were prone to posting MANY messages to the list in a given time period.

At some point in time, the summaries went away, perhaps when Thomas retired or
something like that. Questions were asked about what happened and John Levine
offered to generate the same summaries which is what you call the "bot".

It's ONE message ONCE a week with some stats. You're the first person to ever
complain, and by now your Narten Score is breaking records.

If you're complaining that John isn't counting his own postings, I think that
might be a bug designed to not count the "bot" posting itself. I am not sure
if this is actually the case. I see posts from John on other IETF-related lists
such as the 118 attendee list, so maybe he IS counting his own messages (modulo
the summary) on the main list. I am sure he will clarify.

Cheers,

Ole

On Oct 14, 2023, at 15:50, Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 3:29 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Here, you have a basically useless spam bot that some people have problems
> with.

I have no problem with the bot's mails. I do have a problem with those
being complained about as if they were a significant problem.

You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but you did not get IETF consensus, did you?

Bot emails are banned by the list charter in any reasonable reading.

I thought of some other ways to respond. I didn't do them, but here they are:

1) Send an email summary of list emails over the past 24 hours (too frequent, very bad)
2) Send the summary email a few hours before the usual bot
3) Characterize the content of the emails in an automatic way, but using a metric decided by the author

I think we can all agree those actions would be bad behavior. So, what's different here?

Write a draft and get consensus. What is so mysterious about that process?

thanks,
Rob

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen@xxxxxx
E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx








[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux