> On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following: > >> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following: > > I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed bypass > > of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist. > So it seems to me that you've failed to see the problem. > Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to > bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering. I see nothing in the requirements that says this supposed to be possible as a unilateral action on the part of the poster. That's clearly preposterous - it should go without saying that whitelisting arrangements are just that: Arrangements. The requirements leave open how such arrangements are made; IMO that's entirely appropriate. > This would also > include a spammer who considers himself a valid poster. At the same time, > the IETF lists MUST provide spam control. I see this as a contradiction in > the announced text. Only if you engage in a VERY creative reading of what's there. > In other words, if one is not already on a whitelist, how does one get on > to it, automatically, without moderation and challenge-response, while > spam-filtering is still provided? And there's that word "automatically". There is nothing in the text that says such arrangements have to be automatic. Ned _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf