Steve Silverman wrote:
It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
maximum number of bytes) would be a
minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users who
are nominated to a "limit" list by many users. How difficult this
would be to implement on the message exploders is another question.
I do not share your regulatory zeal.
As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
draconian rules like this.
Steve Silverman
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Michael Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:26 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: "too many notes" -- a modest proposal
It seems to me that a lot of what causes working group lists to
melt down is simply the volume of traffic -- usually with plenty
of off-topic banter, or exchanges of dubious value, with
the resulting
conjestive collapse of our wetware buffering. On good days, the
drop algorithm may be more sophisticated than tail drops; on
bad days...
Perhaps we should take a lesson from TCP and set a receive window
on IETF mailing lists in the face of conjestion. The sender is thus
obligated to keep the transmission within the window, and as a side
effect to consider the quality of the, um, quantity. Just
this simple
step would greatly limit (purposeful) DOS attacks and other death
spirals. It also mitigates the "free speech" attacks by not
throttling
based on content (which is inherently contentious), but based on
wg mailing list "bandwidth".
in all modesty, Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf