Aren´t old XXattendees MLs suspended/default moderated ? i would have thought so. At least it's what we do with old lacnicXX-attendees -Carlos On 4/15/16 3:52 PM, ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is >> appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution. > There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent, > but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter. There are a few > that are competent and have very low error rates. They, not > surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses. When I say everyone, I mean > it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam > filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the > alternatives. > > In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists > still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend > to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get > their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as > well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to > twiddle things beyond that. > > R's, > John > > PS: > >>> We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance >>> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic >>> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass. > I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of > systems with malicious participants. It's not unrelated to the > observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you > as a member. > > _______________________________________________ > 89attendees mailing list > 89attendees@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/89attendees