> Hi - > > From: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:12 PM > > Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists > ... > > And there's that word "automatically". There is nothing in the text that says > > such arrangements have to be automatic. > ... > I have the same problem with the text. It says: > > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide a mechanism for legitimate technical > > participants to bypass moderation, challenge-response, or other techniques > > that would interfere with a prompt technical debate on the mailing list > > without requiring such participants to receive list traffic. > The stated requirement is that it must not "interfere with a prompt > technical debate". Clearly, that rules out anything requiring human > intervention. It does nothing of the sort. This is talking about the effect the whitelist must have, not the procedure for setting it up. And before you argue that it can be read as applying to the setup procedure, then you need to explain what it means to "bypass moderation" for a whitelisting setup operation. That makes no sense whatsoever. > What do you have in mind that would allow the > spammer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H participant to post without subscribing > and without interacting with a chair or list administrator? I have no such thing in mind because there's no such requirement to meet. However, this has gone on long enough. I give up - what seems completely and absolutely clear to me to the point of patent obviousness is apparently totally opaque to lots of other people. So let's change the language to make it clear to everyone and be done with it. Ned _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf