On 2008-04-15 05:12 Ned Freed said the following: >> 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. As has been painfully clear for some email round-trips, we obviously don't agree. Henrik _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf