Subject: RE: Attachment Stripped in Transaction -- QoS/CoS to the applicat ion layer

From: "Gream, Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 08:54:26 +0100

Isn't it much better in the spirit of the IETF if the lists remain open, but
a technical solution is used to prevent or reduce junk.
You could do this by introducing a signal-to-noise feature/classification
system and/or some sort of feedback/marking process.
Why not apply QoS/CoS to the application layer.

Matthew Gream
___________________________________________________________________________
Engineer
T: +44 (0)20 7348 1548
Orchestream 
Avon House, Kensington Village, Avonmore Road, London W14 8TS
T: +44 (0)20 7348 1500 F: +44 (0)20 7348 1501
www.orchestream.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kory Hamzeh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:39 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Lloyd Wood; Greg Minshall; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Attachment Stripped in Transaction

> Exactly. Much better rules are possible, and in fact much better
> rules are in
> wide use on other lists.

Many lists:

A.) Reject posts from non-members.
B.) Don't allow attachments.

They don't have any of these problems that seem to plague the mailing list
of the brightest minds of the Internet.

Kory

--
This communication contains confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual/s and/or entity or entities to whom it was intended to be addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately, delete this communication from your system, and do not disclose its contents to any third party, or use its contents.  Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Orchestream Ltd or its group of companies unless otherwise specifically stated.

---

From: "Gream, Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:50:15 +0100

I don't think it violates the spirit of the IETF - but perhaps makes it less
open. 

A membership requirement suppresses the ability to arbitrarily carbon-copy
messages into other mailing lists, which is a useful activity to move
open/move discussions around especially at an innovative collaborative edge
such as standards development and the IETF. Practically, most WG mailing
lists are closed - but you could implement group membership (i.e. read/write
membership to one list allows write membership to all others). 
A membership requirement does not entirely solve some of the current
problems, where mail agents reject email and return replies - you need some
sort of classification scheme. A simple classification scheme could even be
implemented in your mailing tool - perhaps marking "established participants
and active threads" with a higher precedence than others, and sorting them
accordingly - you could then prioritise and manage incoming information with
greater ease. Maybe some mailing agents do this - mine doesn't.

Membership may be a good short term solution when other approaches are not
available though.

Matthew.

Matthew Gream

-----Original Message-----
From: Kory Hamzeh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:26 PM
To: Gream, Matthew; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Attachment Stripped in Transaction -- QoS/CoS to the
application layer

In a closed list, all a person has to do is to subscribe with a valid e-mail
address before they can post. Can you explain to me how that violates the
spirit of the IETF?

> From: Gream, Matthew [mailto:[email-masked]]
>