Subject: namedroppers mismanagement, continued

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2002 11:49:42 -0000

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  your subscription address is
  [email-masked], please post from it or
  fix subscription your subscription address! ]

I've sent twelve messages to the namedroppers mailing list this month.
Five of them have been silently discarded by the namedroppers censor,
Randy Bush. (See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous
incidents.)

Bush says that the only relevant feature of my messages is that they're
sent from an address that isn't subscribed to namedroppers. Okay, boys
and girls, let's look at some statistics:

   * 5/12 of my messages have been silently discarded;

   * according to Bush, this has nothing to do with me or the content,
     so we estimate that about 5/12 of all non-subscriber messages have
     been silently discarded;

   * in the past three months, there have been about 100 legitimate
     messages from other people who Bush labelled as non-subscribers;

   * so we estimate that, in the last three months, Bush has silently
     discarded about 71 legitimate messages from other people. That's a
     rate of hundreds per year.

Bush doesn't say ``Your message didn't go through.'' Bush doesn't say
``Reply to this bounce to confirm your original message.'' He simply
throws the message away.

This is supposed to be the mailing list for an open IETF working group.
It's outrageous that valid messages are being silently discarded---even
if the number is not as large as hundreds per year.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

P.S. Out of my twelve messages, the five that were silently discarded
are exactly the five that I would pick if I were a censor trying to bias
the DNSEXT decisions in favor of the BIND company. Coincidence, right?

P.P.S. Bush's mailing-list software doesn't cryptographically confirm
unsubscription requests. I kept my subscription address private until
Bush revealed it a few days ago. I'm working on obtaining a subscription
through an address that Bush doesn't know is connected to me.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:13:26 -0600

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Why not simply subscribe and resend?

As a maintainer of several lists, I can confirm what a royal pain it is to
deal with people posting from non-subscribed addresses.  I usually get 1-2 a
week as I'm sorting through the 10-15 SPAMs a day.  I'm sure I mistakenly
reject many of them.

Just my $.02 worth,

-Dave

-- 
David Frascone

                   My karma ran over my dogma

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:39:03 -0500

> Randy Bush. (See http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous

in my experience, if you send mail to the list administrator
and say "please add [email-masked] as an address that is allowed
to post to this list", the problem goes away - for that list.

and no, I don't think that one should have to "say the secret magic words"
to make the right thing happen.    but it does seem to work in practice.

Keith

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:34:54 -0500 (EST)

Bernstein - I'm not surprised this is happening.  I've experimented with
your dns daemon and it is by far superior to the existing bind
implimentations.  So I'm frankly not very surprised Bush don't like your
posts.  But I will admit the behaviour is juvenile.  But again this should
not surprise us.

But to end this on a positive note - let me make clear I admire your work.

regards
joe baptista

---

From: "John M. Brown" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:54:59 -0700

so stop bitching and subscribe to the mailing list
like the rest of us.......   Then you make your problem
go away, and Randy doesn't have to baby sit your messages.

just my $0.00002  worth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of D. J. Bernstein
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
> 
> 
> I've sent twelve messages to the namedroppers mailing list 
> this month. Five of them have been silently discarded by the 
> namedroppers censor, Randy Bush. (See 
> http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html for previous
> incidents.)
> 
> Bush says that the only relevant feature of my messages is 
> that they're sent from an address that isn't subscribed to 
> namedroppers. Okay, boys and girls, let's look at some statistics:
> 
> Bush doesn't say ``Your message didn't go through.'' Bush 
> doesn't say ``Reply to this bounce to confirm your original 
> message.'' He simply throws the message away.
> 
> This is supposed to be the mailing list for an open IETF 
> working group. It's outrageous that valid messages are being 
> silently discarded---even if the number is not as large as 
> hundreds per year.
> 
> ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of 
> Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of 
> Illinois at Chicago
> 
> P.S. Out of my twelve messages, the five that were silently 
> discarded are exactly the five that I would pick if I were a 
> censor trying to bias the DNSEXT decisions in favor of the 
> BIND company. Coincidence, right?
> 
> P.P.S. Bush's mailing-list software doesn't cryptographically 
> confirm unsubscription requests. I kept my subscription 
> address private until Bush revealed it a few days ago. I'm 
> working on obtaining a subscription through an address that 
> Bush doesn't know is connected to me.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to 
> [email-masked] with the word 'unsubscribe' 
> in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: "John S. Quarterman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:26:09 -0600

> if the number is not as large as hundreds per year.

Messages from non-subscribers are not valid messages for a mailing list.

Personally, what I wonder is why Randy bothers to forward any messages
from non-subscribers, especially if this is the thanks he gets.

-jsq

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:12:51 -0500 (EST)

Randy also drops messages from subscribers whom he doesn't like.

I've been subject to this, and I resent the message to a few other people
to see if they thought my message was relevant and on-topic, and they
responded they thought it was.  Once, even the person I was disagreeing
with agreed that I had a valid point, and my message should have been
posted.

		--Dean

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2002 21:06:23 -0000

> Why not simply subscribe and resend?

How does that help namedroppers recover all the lost messages from
_other_ people? Bush has _sent_ 115 legitimate namedroppers messages
from non-subscribers in the last three months; how many has he _lost_?

> I'm sure I mistakenly reject many of them.

Do you _silently discard_ them? If the sender isn't monitoring the list,
how will he ever know that his message didn't go through? If he _is_
monitoring the list, how long is he supposed to wait before complaining?

Bush imposed his mailing-list control methods without IESG approval, in
violation of RFC 2418, section 3.2. He has been caught engaging in
content-based censorship several times:

   http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html

What's stopping him from selectively delaying or discarding messages
that he doesn't like? How can we tell whether these were actually
``mistakes''?

Manual reviews are completely inappropriate for a standardization forum.
They allow uncontrolled abuse, even when they aren't exacerbated by a
lack of notification to the sender.

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 15:58:32 -0000

Once again: Bush is (1) subjecting a huge number of legitimate messages
to manual review and (2) silently discarding many of these legitimate
messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine).

Both #1 and #2 are unacceptable. I want the manual reviews _eliminated_.
If a message isn't posted immediately, it must be bounced, with a clear
explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention.

If the IETF documentation doesn't make sufficiently clear that Bush's
behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed.

---

From: Dan Schlitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:00:06 -0500

I believe that this statement applies. Perhaps both Randy and DJB might
review it before continuing this off-topic thread.

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:03:56 -0500
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: IETF-Announce:  ;
Subject: Guidance for spam-control on IETF mailing lists

The level of spam on IETF mailing lists has now reached the level
that we encourage the use of operational controls as described in:

        http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt

In particular, list managers are encouraged to employ the use of
automatic mechanisms that immediately distribute messages submitted
by subscribers and other known email addresses while directing all
other messages to a human reviewer for rejection or approval.

-- 

Dan Schlitt
[email-masked]

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:49:47 -0500 (EST)

> messages, apparently at a rate of hundreds per year (not counting mine).

All you need to do is ONE of the following:
	Use the same subcription address and posting address
	Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters
		list.

> explanation of how to have it posted without Bush's intervention.

The ONLY reason there is manual review is because you are not
addhearing to the protocol for posting to the mailing list.

> behavior is unacceptable, that documentation also has to be fixed.

Send text.

	Olafur

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:50:07 -0500 (EST)

I am not on the ietf or iesg list. I don't know if this will go through to
those lists.

While DJB may also have some subscription issue, that is not the
fundamental problem.

It seems from your comments below, that you think that Randy isn't
manually blocking/forwarding messages from subscribed addresses. However,
that it not true.

The real problem is that Randy sometimes don't post messages from people
he doesn't like or on topics he has an interest in, even when they are
posted from subscribed addresses.  This has happened to me several times.
One of the occasions where it happened to me is documented on Bernstein's
web page.  It has probably happened many more times that haven't made it
on DJB's webpage.

There seems to be no reason that Randy should set himself up as a
moderator, or any reason whatsoever there should be any manual
intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

		--Dean

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:23:22 +0100

> intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

The lack of transparency smacks of impropriety. I see this list well served
with some moderation. I do not see it benefit from unfettered solo activity
with no external checks and balances.

'Trust me' does not apply here. 

To resolve this I suggest a page with any articles that have been refused
for whatever reason. Randy?

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2002 23:24:47 -0000

Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
> Ask Randy to put your posting address on the approved posters list.

Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to set them up
as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY DISCARDED. (Misdirecting
them to some obscure web page would have essentially the same effect.)

You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a whole
bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have also been listed
as coming from non-subscribers. How many more messages have been lost---
or deliberately thrown away by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED!

As for my own sender address [email-masked], Bush has already taken manual
action---but what he did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known 
addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription address on top of
all my messages to the list---shortly after I had informed him that I
kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge
unsubscription requests.

I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately explained by
stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by hand in the first place.
The only acceptable ways to process a message to a standardization
mailing list are

   (1) to immediately pass it through unchanged to the subscribers or
   (2) to immediately bounce it.

The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective standards. The
bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain the standards. The standards
must allow the sender to straightforwardly arrange for #1.

---

From: "John M. Brown" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:47:21 -0700

Dan, sounds like a plan.  I say all messages from
Bernstein be handled via his option #2

Can we please BOUNCE all of Dr. Bernsteins email with
the correct procedure, in the bounce message, on how
to subscribe and be a participating member of the list
instead of bitching and wasting time.

If you have specific complaints about the List Manager
then forward them, in private, to the NomCom.

This list is NOT the place for this bitch fest.  

Now lets get back to something more important like
arguing over DNS SEC. ;)

Jeesh, what a waste...

> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: namedroppers mismanagement, continued
> 
> 
> Messages are not being bounced with explanations of how to 
> set them up as known addresses. Messages are being SILENTLY 
> DISCARDED. (Misdirecting them to some obscure web page would 
> have essentially the same effect.)
> 
> You say the problem is that _I_ am not doing something. But a 
> whole bunch of namedroppers messages from _other_ people have 
> also been listed as coming from non-subscribers. How many 
> more messages have been lost--- or deliberately thrown away 
> by Bush? THE PROCEDURE IS FLAWED!
> 
> As for my own sender address [email-masked], Bush has already 
> taken manual action---but what he did was _not_ adding the 
> address to a list of known 
> addresses. Instead, he started putting my subscription 
> address on top of all my messages to the list---shortly after 
> I had informed him that I kept _that_ address private to 
> limit the number of people who can forge unsubscription requests.
> 
> I don't care whether Bush's decisions can be adequately 
> explained by stupidity. The decisions shouldn't be made by 
> hand in the first place. The only acceptable ways to process 
> a message to a standardization mailing list are
> 
> The decision between #1 and #2 must be made by objective 
> standards. The bounces must clearly and thoroughly explain 
> the standards. The standards must allow the sender to 
> straightforwardly arrange for #1.
>

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:27:25 -0500 (EST)

> manually blocking/forwarding messages from subscribed addresses. However,

As of early this year the policy of the list was changed from
"moderation" to "subscriber automated posting".
Bringing up ancient history is not productive as that issue has
been addressed.

Randy is currently wasting valuable time in manually scanning
100+ spams a day that are sent to namedroppers and other IETF mailing
lists he runs and we all should thank him for the good citizen service
he provides!
Every meesage that is reposted from the bounced list contains a header
explaining that posting address is not a subscribed address.

I agree that the feature to get a message back saying that a message is
waiting for manual moderation is good, it requires effort for the
list operator to set up. In my personal case I get few of these messages
each month in response to viral attempts to post messages as me on
random mailing lists.

> web page.  It has probably happened many more times that haven't made it

Ancient history.

> intervention on posting from subscribed addresses.  Do you agree?

Yes, this is the CURRENT list policy. Thus the only messages that
are affected are from non subscribers and people posting from
different address.

In response the some points raised in this thread two changes
will happen:
 - Montly namedroppers list policy message will contain statement on
	the posting policy.
 - Moderated messages will contain more informative instructions
   on how to avoid moderation.

	Olafur (DNSEXT co-chair)