Hi,
I think what has been lost here is that the delays were not just with
my non-member submission, but also my member address as well. The
fact that it is intermittent makes it all very odd. I still have yet
to receive a May 6 8:49PM reply post using my member address and its
been nearly 22 hours. The odd thing is that someone indicated offlist
they received a copy of it. But its not on the IETF list archive and
my servers show no evidence of any attempt.
My MTA machine use SPF with hard fail policies (no softfail or neutral
results) and all my mail is signed, that doesn't seem to have any
weight. Whats odd is if this is indeed of case of specific
individuals moderation, its filtered on domains only and not the
"person" because I have no problem with gmail.com postings.
Thanks
--
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
http://hector.wildcatblog.com
jabber: hector@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mary Barnes wrote:
I agree with you John. I know that I have had messages discarded on
several occasions. As a moderator, I look at the legitimacy of the posting
and if it is a member of the community (it's generally very easy to tell),
then I add them as being able to post even though they aren't subscribed.
This can be very helpful as many of us use multiple addresses.
Mary.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Monday, May 07, 2012 14:18 +0000 John Levine
<johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
the question seems to be "we used to reply to the sender
with a notification that their message was blocked due to
not being a list member, with options to wait or cancel; did
we disable those notifications?"
I sure hope so. These days about 99.9% of spam from unknown
senders is spam with forged addresses, so responses are just
more spam aka blowback.
At the same time, the IETF has considerable obligations about
openness. From that point of view, silently discarding messages
from someone who thought they had properly subscribed could be
rather bad news. Fortunately, if I correctly understand the
thread, we aren't doing that, we are moderating instead.
If that is correct, it seems to me that it might be appropriate
to send a message to the submitter of a moderated message
explaining that moderation leads to both delays and extra work
so that, if they intend to submit further messages from the
address, they should subscribe properly. That approach would
seem to serve both efficiency (fewer messages to moderate
because people would be warned to subscribe) and anti-blowback
efforts (the only messages that would generate responses to a
supposed submission addresses are those that had already been
found sufficiently valid/relevant to post to the list).
It also seems to me that our subscription and archive pages
might well be modified to be explicit about what our procedures
actually are. Doing so would improve openness, help some
contributors, and not help any spammers who are indifferent to
whether their messages go (anyone wanting to specifically spam
IETF lists can figure out how to subscribe, even with our
verification process).
If an active contributor like Hector is posting one message
after another, seeing delays, and not noticing that he is not
properly subscribed at that address, it seems to me that we
could, and should, be doing better rather than blaming the
victim.
john