There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp that kind of confuse me and maybe someone could explain:
Claim: The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.
Question: Since the first PR-Action was only a few months ago are you saying that all the good people have been gone for a long time and everyone still here are the people the good engineers left because of?
Claim: Filtering by sender doesn't help because you see all the repsonses to their mail.
Question a: If the responses are part of the problem then aren't the people who sent them part of the problem as well? They are equally (probably more disruptive), so why not ban them? Are they incapable of controlling their responses? Are they lemmings?
Question b: If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying to the person that you do, then maybe you are in the minority in thinking their comments aren't worthy of discussion?
Question c: If so many people whose email you don't want to filter are replying the person that you do then maybe you're the only one who's filtering them?
Question: If there was rough consensus on banning someone then if that same rough consensus individually filtered all mail to or from that individual wouldn't the same effect be acheived? Roughly?
Question: Has no one made a dynamic filter that logs the subject of all email sent from an address and then filters all future email with the same subject, regardless of sender or recipient?
Question How many responses will not be able to refrain from making fun of the Clain/Question format I used?
nick
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf