mailing list problems

Joe,

Please make your filters smart enough to allow postings by
subscribers
or by senders who've posted before or remove the filters
altogether.

If you don't then I will ask the chair to create a btnsietf.org
list
and move the WG discussion to it.  (The chair may refuse to
do that, of
course.)

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________

Hi, all,

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> Please make your filters smart enough to allow postings
by subscribers
> or by senders who've posted before or remove the
filters altogether.

While the idea that "if you posted before, all future
posts are OK"
seems useful on the surface, there are two problems:

	1) that's not a setting in Mailman (of which I am aware;
		if anyone knows otherwise, please let me know off-list)

	2) that won't stop the spam (we already get) spoofed with
	source addresses of regular posters, as well as other
	subscribed addresses

> If you don't then I will ask the chair to create a
btnsietf.org list
> and move the WG discussion to it.  (The chair may
refuse to do that, of
> course.)

That's your perogative (and the chair's). I provide the
service I can,
with the resources available. I don't have the resources to
rewrite
Mailman every time a transient like this comes up, nor would
I expect
the IETF system to either.

In general, we receive very little spam, and trip up the
system on cases
like this rarely.

If you believe that there is a potential problem, it might
be useful to
start by changing the subject line, since most of our
filters weigh the
subject line heavily.

Joe (as list admin)


_______________________________________________

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:16:07AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> > Please make your filters smart enough to allow
postings by subscribers
> > or by senders who've posted before or remove the
filters altogether.
> 
> While the idea that "if you posted before, all
future posts are OK"
> seems useful on the surface, there are two problems:
> 
> 	1) that's not a setting in Mailman (of which I am
aware;
> 		if anyone knows otherwise, please let me know
off-list)
> 
> 	2) that won't stop the spam (we already get) spoofed
with
> 	source addresses of regular posters, as well as other
> 	subscribed addresses

So let's make it the IETF's problem.  They have a tools
team.

> > If you don't then I will ask the chair to create a
btnsietf.org list
> > and move the WG discussion to it.  (The chair may
refuse to do that, of
> > course.)
> 
> That's your perogative (and the chair's). I provide the
service I can,
> with the resources available. I don't have the
resources to rewrite
> Mailman every time a transient like this comes up, nor
would I expect
> the IETF system to either.
> 
> In general, we receive very little spam, and trip up
the system on cases
> like this rarely.

I've been annoyed more than once by these filters.  From
what you say
any subject line with "call for" causes this. 
Well.  In a consensus
driven organization calls for consensus are common, so your
filter is
broken.  Please fix it, or just turn it off.

> If you believe that there is a potential problem, it
might be useful to
> start by changing the subject line, since most of our
filters weigh the
> subject line heavily.

Absolutely not.  I will not try to guess what possible
filters you have,
nor try to remember which ones I've tripped over in the
past, when
answering someone else's e-mail.

In this case I was answering an e-mail from the WG chair --
I won't look
askance at the chairs' e-mails' subject lines!

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________

Nicolas Williams wrote:
...
>> In general, we receive very little spam, and trip
up the system on cases
>> like this rarely.
> 
> I've been annoyed more than once by these filters. 
From what you say
> any subject line with "call for" causes this.
 Well.  In a consensus
> driven organization calls for consensus are common, so
your filter is
> broken.  Please fix it, or just turn it off.

I will proceed with fixing the filter, which has been
delayed replying
to your repeated complaints.

:-(

Joe


_______________________________________________

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:48:49AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
> I will proceed with fixing the filter, which has been
delayed replying
> to your repeated complaints.

Excuse me?

The first complaint you rejected.  The second caused you to
finally fix
it, and it's my fault that it's taking you some time to fix
it?!

For the record, I don't care if it takes you a day or three
to fix it,
as long as you do.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________