Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> In my time as IETF chair, I was sometimes chastised for
> creating new mailing lists at the drop of a hat, scattering
> official IETF business over multiple lists that nobody ever
> could remember or find again. But now I'm no longer IETF
> chair, so what I do with mailing lists is entirely my own
> business. Official IETF business goes on IETF lists. This
> isn't one.
Of course everybody incl. you is free to create new lists as
it pleases him or her, but it's IMHO a bad strategy, unless
the "original" list is clearly flooded by off topics. Often
splitting or worse renaming lists (or newsgroups) is a way
to kill at least one of them. Examples:
Now a part of the MASS traffic is on DKIM, MASS is essentially
dead. The public PECSI traffic is apparently what used to be
NETWRK traffic. ASRG has more sublists than total articles
per year. Inspired by that stunt SPF is on its way to top it.
I really don't like this. If the "hidden agenda" is to get
rid of RfC 3683 debates here I can understand your motivation,
but for this first plus second experiment with actually using
RfC 3683 I'd prefer to have it here. And so far I think that
3934 is better than 3683, and a hypothetical 3934bis should
start with "obsoletes 3683".
Bye, Frank
P.S.: One of the Usenet "laws" (like Godwin's law), as soon
as the name of a poster makes it into the subject the
thread is dead.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf