Subject: It's time for some new steps (was: [Welcome to the "Ietf-honest" mailing list])

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:38:00 -0800

Folks,

The enclosed comes from iadl.org which is controlled by av8.com which is 
controlled by Dean Anderson.

Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version of it 
is more than silly.

This action by Dean is not merely posting inappropriate notes that would warrant 
temporary suspension of list privileges.  It is an organized, aggressive and -- 
if you look at the web page associated with iadl.org web page -- highly ad 
hominem attack on the IETF community.

Since we happen to simultaneously be suffering a DOS attack on the list from a 
separately-concerned community, I suggest that it is time for taking some new steps:

   1. Permanently and irrevocably ban postings from any and all addresses that 
Dean controls.  An organized attack warrants it.

   2. Highten strictures on ietf list posting.  I'm not entirely clear what 
level the current bar is set to, but we need to set it higher, to reduce the 
ability to limit the ability of organized advocate groups to disrupt the list.

The IETF list culture was formulated for a more civilized time.  We wish we 
still lived in that town.

This isn't about message content.  It's about efforts at disruption.

d/

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Welcome to the "Ietf-honest" mailing list
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:57:37 -0500
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

Welcome to the [email-masked] mailing list!

This mailing list is for IETF members to discuss IETF business without
improper censorship.

This list was created because of dishonest filtering by the IESG.  See
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch for more information on the corrupt
activities of officials of the Internet Society, Inc (ISOC) IETF
Activity, and their connection to other corrupt activities.

You were probably added to this list because you participated in
[email-masked] discussion, and that list is used to determine consensus
for ISOC IETF Activity actions. Consensus is a democratic activity of
the ISOC, which is a U.S. non-profit, tax exempt membership
corporation. ALL members of the ISOC IETF have a property right to
participate in its democratic decision processes.   [see U.S. v. Local
560, extortion (Hobbs Act) and racketeering by mafia that took over a
Union and tried to prevent participation by those opposing the mafia]

Email sent to this list will be forwared to [email-masked].  Ordinary
IETF members should feel free to unsubscribe from this list if they
choose. IETF representatives (e.g. Working Group Chairs) have a duty
to the  corporation to read email sent to them on IETF business, and
should not try to unsubscribe.

To post to this list, send your email to:

   [email-masked]

General information about the mailing list is at:

   http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-honest

If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to
or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your
subscription page at:

   http://lists.iadl.org/mailman/options/ietf-honest/dcrocker%40bbiw.net

You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to:

   [email-masked]

with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the
quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions.

You must know your password to change your options (including changing
the password, itself) or to unsubscribe.  It is:

   asubzuco

Normally, Mailman will remind you of your lists.iadl.org mailing list
passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you
prefer.  This reminder will also include instructions on how to
unsubscribe or change your account options.  There is also a button on
your options page that will email your current password to you.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:50:57 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Dave CROCKER" <[email-masked]>
> To: "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:38 PM
> Subject: It's time for some new steps (was: [Welcome to the "Ietf-honest"mailing list])
...
> Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version of it 

Particularly since mail to the -request address bounces, and
using the web interface to unsubscribe apparently has no effect.
Subscribing someone to a list and not allowing them to remove
themselves...  seems like a page from the same "win friends and
influence people" checklist as the fsf campaign seems to be using.  :-(

Randy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:15:53 -0500

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:38:00 -0800 Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
>separately-concerned community,
...

I think an accusation that the FSF is conducting a DOS attack on the IETF 
is very serious.  

If you find several dozen emails a denial of service you might want to 
consider a better mail client.  I'd rather not have had to spend the 5 
minutes it took me to skim and delete them, but it's hardly a denial of 
service.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:20:22 -0500

Dave: I disagree ...

Dean's mail does not hurt any of us.  OK, it does take a minute of our
time to unsubscribe but that's it.  The ietf list will see the same
messages it has already been seeing; his list will carry a few other
messages for people who choose to use it.  Messages sent to his list
and resent to ietf will continue to have the originating author, who
can be banned if appropriate.  A broad irrevocable ban on anything
developed by a particular person goes beyond what I hope is still the
spirit of the IETF.

The FSF firestorm is another question: For example, should we require
subscription in order to have posting rights?  It's attractive but
there have been objections in the past, and the FSF attack will be
over soon -- long before we finish discussing whether to act on your
suggestion.

Scott

Excerpts from Dave CROCKER on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:38:00PM -0800:
> Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version 
> of it is more than silly.
>
> This action by Dean is not merely posting inappropriate notes that would 
> warrant temporary suspension of list privileges.  It is an organized, 
> aggressive and -- if you look at the web page associated with iadl.org 
> web page -- highly ad hominem attack on the IETF community.
>
> Since we happen to simultaneously be suffering a DOS attack on the list 
> from a separately-concerned community, I suggest that it is time for 
> taking some new steps:
>
>   1. Permanently and irrevocably ban postings from any and all addresses 
> that Dean controls.  An organized attack warrants it.
>
>   2. Highten strictures on ietf list posting.  I'm not entirely clear 
> what level the current bar is set to, but we need to set it higher, to 
> reduce the ability to limit the ability of organized advocate groups to 
> disrupt the list.
>
> The IETF list culture was formulated for a more civilized time.  We wish 
> we still lived in that town.
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:21:23 -0500

> using the web interface to unsubscribe apparently has no effect.

worked for me ... but enough on this.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 23:54:52 -0700

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:56:01PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> 
> Only IETF officials are told not to unsubscribe.

Your attitude is appalling. You subscribe a lot of very busy people to 
a list without their permission and without knowing whether they have 
any interest in said list, then force them to take a few minutes to 
unsubscribe. Multiply by dozens or hundreds of people and you've wasted
some significant man-hours. A simple invitation would have sufficed.

Perhaps you might spend some quality time with RFC 1855?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:40:55 -0700

On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:

> time to unsubscribe but that's it.

In my opinion it is not alright for someone to harvest email address  
off and IETF list then subscribe all those people to some list they  
did not consent to be on?

Cullen

PS. I would also like to point out that though Dean may allow Scott to  
unsubscribe, there are many people that he does not allow to  
unsubscribe.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:12:17 -0500

Excerpts from Cullen Jennings on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:40:55AM -0700:
>> Dean's mail does not hurt any of us.  OK, it does take a minute of
>> our time to unsubscribe but that's it.
>
>

I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
all interactions?  

> PS. I would also like to point out that though Dean may allow Scott
> to  unsubscribe, there are many people that he does not allow to
> unsubscribe.

Are you sure of that?  Have you tried?

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:23:23 -0800

> time to unsubscribe but that's it.  The ietf list will see the same

Spam behaviour on the Internet is not "wrong" simply because the email
of one individual is intolerable, but rather because the behaviour of
a hive of such individuals is intractable.

So please decide right now precisely how many lists like Dean's would
be tractable, and create a process to reserve a place in that list.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:25:14 -0800

> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on

Scott,

When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior, with no 
counter-balancing pattern of useful contribution, their presence is purely a 
distraction.  Ignoring a distraction is preferable, but some distractions cannot 
be reasonably ignored; they force themselves on us.

They constantly cost us wasteful effort; in the aggregate -- over time, and 
across the community -- quite a lot of effort.

Such folk warrant banning.  Permanently and completely.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:43:14 -0500

On Feb 10, 2009, at 12:23 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:

>> our

To me, this is simple a matter of courtesy. Sending me an email saying
"I gather that you are interested in foo, I have set up a mailing list  
dedicated to foo,
the instructions to join are here" may be perfectly proper and will  
(from me) generally
get the benefit of the doubt if I feel that the starting inference is  
reasonable.

However, sending me an email saying "I gather that you are interested  
in foo,
I have set up a mailing list dedicated to foo and subscribed you,
the instructions on how to leave are here" is in my opinion never  
proper.

So, my answer to your question is, none.

(This obviously does not include the special case of a mailing list  
master for a list I am a member
of sending me a notice that a list has moved, or notice of other such  
administrative changes.)

Regards
Marshall

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:27:19 -0800

> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on
So then you would also ban those company's who use this same tactic. 
Cisco and many others do use this as a part of spraying their 
advertisement's all over so unless you want to the GC dispute this as 
true, then we need to move on

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:37:13 -0500

> When someone demonstrates a permanent pattern of disruptive behavior, 
> with no counter-balancing pattern of useful contribution, their presence 
> is purely a distraction.  Ignoring a distraction is preferable, but some 
> distractions cannot be reasonably ignored; they force themselves on us.
>
> They constantly cost us wasteful effort; in the aggregate -- over time, 
> and across the community -- quite a lot of effort.

OK, you are looking at cumulative disruption.  Previously you had just
referred to this one occurrence.  Even if you think this one deserves
banishment, I still believe (1) you should go through the established
warning process, and 

> Such folk warrant banning.  Permanently and completely.

(2) a permanent irrevocable ban on all possible means of communication
is way over the top.

Just remember, "dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on".

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Feb 2009 21:07:23 -0000

> I see your point, but does it warrant a perpetual irrevocable ban on

In Dean's case, yes.

There's a great deal of history here.

R's,
John

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:22:59 -0800

>>>>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:21:23 -0500, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> said:

>> > Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current
>> > version of it is more than silly.
>> 

SB> worked for me ... but enough on this.

FYI, I unsubscribed twice.  The first method (logging in with my
assigned password and hitting unsubscribe) failed even though it told me
it succeeded.

So I tried the second approach which was to simple enter my address and
hit the unsubscribe button to have it mail me a confirmation URL.
Visiting the confirmation URL did seem to work, so I'd suggest people
try this method for unsubscribing if the login method fails for you like
it did me.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:50:01 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Wes Hardaker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: It's time for some new steps
...
...

When I finally did manage to unsubscribe, the list owner re-subscribed me.
I wonder whether he's doing this to all those FSF posters, too.

Randy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:48:25 -0500

I also was resubscribed. I received the usual totally clarifying  
message one has come to expect from Mr Anderson.

None of this suggests to me, however, that we ought to do something.  
My understanding (and I'd appreciate being disabused if I'm wrong) is  
that Mr Anderson is already not allowed to post to IETF lists, even  
though he sometimes manages to do so anyway. If I'm right, I can't see  
how banning him for longer, we mean it this time, neener neener, is  
any help.  We just need better sieve rules, not better ietf ones.

Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

On 11-Feb-09, at 13:50, "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

[...]

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:24:26 +0100

> any help.  We just need better sieve rules, not better ietf ones. 
So far I haven't seen anyone but Dean Anderson post to the "ietf-honest" 
list, so for me there's no extra workload involved - my sieve filters 
are already doing the Right Thing.

We have a name for people who subscribe you to receive mail you don't 
want, and that word is "spammer". In this case, we even know exactly who 
the spammer is.

Dealing with the spammer is not an IETF matter, no matter what he calls 
his list.

                  Harald

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:13:16 -0500

> reduce the ability to limit the ability of organized advocate groups to 

I strongly concur with Dave on the first point, having long since
implemented those measures on resources I control.

I mostly concur with Dave on the second point, but it's not clear to me
how to achieve the (entirely sensible) goal while still allowing diverse
and occasionally dissenting opinions to be heard.  Might it be reasonable
(since this list is run by Mailman and the capability exists) for the
operators of the list to temporarily throw "moderate all" switch when
in their judgment the circumstances warrant it?

---Rsk

---

From: Clint Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:40:41 -0800

And once the "moderate" switch has been thrown, what criteria will be
used to decide which messages to allow and which to block?

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA