On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must > > read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the > > point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. > > Why don't you do that, then, so that he need not be banned just for > your convenience? The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered out, it is trivially easy to claim rough consensus. So if everyone followed your advice (except for the poor wg chair, who has to judge consensus, so he/she would be forced to read through all of the dreck), it would be trivially easy for a group to get something past the wg; just have 2 or 3 people suggest something that would normally be controversial, insert the keyword "<Jefsey> somewhere in the text, and then when no one responds because they have all filtered out any text containing the word "Jefsey", the 2 or 3 people can claim rough consensus and the change goes in. :-) - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf