[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recent Spam

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org> wrote on Tue, 04 Jan 2000
10:04:43 -0800:

 >(a) The IESG has already said that they do not want any posting
 >restrictions for WG mailing lists, specifically with this case. As someone
 >else has already pointed out, they post from a different address, and
 >they'd need to somehow "register" for each address they want to post from.

I am rather surprised to read such statements from IETF members, as
nearly all e-mail clients permit one to change the "From: ..." address
quite easily.

For example, I am posting currently from "wolfgang@redtenbacher.de".
As I have subscribed to most of the 10 mailing lists I receive daily
from another account ("redtenbacher@csi.com"), I simply modify my
"From:" address to "redtenbacher@csi.com" when posting.

Is it really too burdensome to require IETF members to learn to
configure their e-mail clients? I always thought that the IETF members
are the top experts of the internet!

 >(b) ns.secondary.com is the mailer for this list; restricting
 >it would be kinda bad. ...

Ops, I was not aware of that. Sorry! Of course we cannot ban this
domain, then.

Regarding the "open-ness" of the mailing list, I would like to clarify
my viewpoint:

An "open list" for me is an "unmoderated list" where everybody may
join, and postings are possible without previous permission from a
moderator. A list where people can post without subscription (i.e.
without reading any answers to their postings and without first
checking if the subject has already been covered on the previous day)
might be appropriate in certain special situations, but definitely not
for standards work.

I have been an active member of 3 DIN (DIN = German standards institute)
standards working groups for 10 years now and I am head of the German
delegation in 2 ISO standards groups ("Software Ergonomics" and
"Programming Language Modula-2"), so if you consider me "spoiled by
ISO", please correct me. But my experience in standards work is that
"one way communication" (= throwing in one's own experiences without
listening to what others say before or after one's own utterances)
never really helped to progress or improve any standards.

Is the IETF experience in this regard really so different? I always
considered the IETF to be a "free ISO counterpart" where the technical
experts can do their jobs without having to bother with all the
politics of ISO (formal national nominations for every meeting,
national votes only, high membership charges etc.). I appreciate this
free IETF attitude very much, but I cannot really see why this
"freedom" should be extended to abusers of the internet (= spammers).

If "anonymous" postings should be permitted, we can always register a
dummy user "post.without@reading.org" (or something like that) as a
member of this list. The spammers are not going to use this, and
legitimate posters can always use this dummy name if they don't
remember under which name they have subscribed to the list.

- Wolfgang Redtenbacher
  (Head of Development)

Redtenbacher Software                Tel.:   +49 7159 17046
Roemerstr. 11/1                      Fax:    +49 7159 17047
D-71272 Renningen                    e-mail: wolfgang@redtenbacher.de