On May 7, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > 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. Maybe you have "not metoo" (Receive your own posts to the list?) set on your mailman entry? Actually, if you login to mailman for the discuss list does it show anything interesting about your address? W > > 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 >>> >>> >>> > >