Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Spam problems on the list

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:25:41 -0500

Steve,

I have absolutely no issues about doing some kind of filtering to
avoid some of the junk that seems to be creeping in on this
mailing list. However the rule for the list(s) is to be able to allow
anyone to be able to post to the list, meaning allowing someone
who has never registered with the Mobile IP list to be able to post.

-Basavaraj

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:50:51 -0700

Basavaraj Patil wrote:
        [..]
> However the rule for the list(s) is to be able to allow

I dont see the conclusion follows directly from the stated goal.
Introducing a scheme whereby first-time posters must validate
that they are posting from a marginally long-lived account doesn't
prevent "anyone" from posting, it just prevents "once off" accounts
from posting.

cheers,
gja

---

From: Steven Glass - Solaris Software <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:31:13 -0400

> -Basavaraj

    I can appreciate this position, in spirit.  The issue seems to be whether
requiring subscription to post makes a list closed.  I thought the IPNG WG had
a 'subscribe to post' policy, but I may be mistaken (it wouldn't allow us to
automatically impose such a policy, but if the WG decided it wanted to go that
route, it would certainly be evidence to allow us to do so).

    An open or closed list (to me) has always been defined as who's allowed to
subscribe.  Since we allow anyone to subscribe, I think the list is open
regardless of requiring subscription to post.  I understand that there are
those among us who want to be able to post without seeing every message, such
as our IESG folks, and I don't want to exclude their postings, but they can be
added as special cases to the posting rules - e.g.

    if (subscribed(fromAddr)) || (IsIESG(fromAddr)) {
        allow();
    } else {
        devNull();
    }

    Taking this to an extreme, we can also accomodate those who want to be
able to post from multiple addresses w/o requiring them to subscribe both
addresses, we just simply add a post-option to the list, that is have a
post-list which is different from the distribution list.

    In IESG terms, this 'filtering' labels a list as "moderated."  From
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt :

    IESG guidance on the moderation of IETF Working Group Mailing Lists
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, it is necessary and appropriate to moderate IETF
    mailing lists. For example, moderation might be needed to control
    excessive spam, persistent off-topic postings, persistent personal
    attacks, etc. on mailing lists.  The IESG has devised the following
    set of guidelines for the moderation of mailing lists.

    1) The appropriate AD(s) must approve of a list being moderated.

    2) The WG should be kept informed of a mailing list's moderation
       policy. For example, a message could be posted to the mailing list
       on a regular basis, or new members could be sent the policy as part
       of the welcome message when subscribing.

    3) Messages should be accepted or rejected in whole; selective editing
       of messages to remove off-topic content is not permitted.

    4) When rejecting a note, a note must be returned to the author with
       a short explanation.

    5) Rejected notes should be saved for a reasonable period of time, so
       that there is a record in the event a dispute arises.

    6) Items 3-5 apply to all manually rejected messages that require some
       thinking on the part of the moderator. They do not apply to obvious
       off-topic "make money fast" messages, or messages rejected through
       generic automated means (i.e., automated spam-filters on mailing
       list software).

    In item (2) I would opt for a policy-notice upon subscription.  Note also
that (it seems) 3-5 could be done automatically based on any policy the ADs
allow (based on WG request/recommendation).  I would presume it can include a
'subscription list' policy, if that's what the WG wishes to propose to the AD.

                              Cheers,
                                  Steve