Subject: Another mail bomber

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 2019 11:47:58 -0400

I'm seeing a lot of mail from someone or something with the address
[email-masked] posted to multiple IETF lists.  It is all copies of
a message apparently intended for ICANN about the renewal of a TLD
registry.  I see nothing else in the archives from this address.

Since we are not ICANN and have nothing to do with TLD registries,
can we block this please?

R's,
John

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 12:03:45 -0400

John:

Wouldn't it be better for the sergeant-at-arms to give at least one warning first?  If the warning is ignored, then blocking seems like the right action.

Russ

> On May 10, 2019, at 11:47 AM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 09:09:55 -0700

And... just as an operational reminder....

If there is something that needs to be done sitewide, on the IETF
servers, you'd want to direct that request to the secretariat at
[email-masked], as opposed to the IETF discussion list.

(Not implying that discussion should be stifled - not at all! - but my
IT team and I don't generally have the bandwidth to follow or read all
the messages on the IETF list.  Sometimes, something gets forwarded to
us, as it did in this case.... but generally, if you need something
done on the servers, [email-masked] is the place to go.)

Glen

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 14:24:36 -0400

--On Friday, May 10, 2019 12:03 -0400 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John:
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for the sergeant-at-arms to give at
> least one warning first?  If the warning is ignored, then
> blocking seems like the right action.

Yes, but remember (as I have been reminded recently) that the
sergeant-at-arms is responsible for the IETF list and not any WG
or non-WG lists.  Maybe we should change that, or at least have
a standard/canned note about good and acceptable practices that
can be sent out easily on the authority of the responsible
person for a list or someone else, but that is a separate
discussion (which I'd encourage the IESG to have at their
convenience).

And it seems to me that there is no need to drag Glen and his
team into any of this until there is an actual decision made to
block someone.

    john

     john

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 2019 14:58:47 -0400

> discussion (which I'd encourage the IESG to have at their

Seems reasonable.  In this case the guy or thing seems to have stopped, 
but we seem to have a newish pattern of a few disruptive messages sent to 
a lot of lists.  In the commercial world we call this snowshoe spam, 
spread lightly enough that no individual gets enough to act on it but in 
the aggregate quite annoying.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:13:31 -0400

John,

Some IETF WG lists (but not all) are set up so that a message from a
non-member of the list needs to be approved to a sender whitelist by the
list admin, and in addition, the sender receives an email invitation to
join the list. Perhaps all WG lists should move to this model. It's worked
well for the lists that I've administered.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:46:19 -0500

> well for the lists that I've administered.

Of course, we did only fairly recently get a "global whitelist" to let
people subscribe to any IETF list be permitted to post to all or nearly all
IETF lists without having to subscribe to each one.  So such a change
should probably be considered in that broader context -- hopefully we can
converge quickly on what the right answer is (if there even is a single
right answer across all the lists).

> > > or non-WG lists.  Maybe we should change that, or at least have

(It already seems to be pretty hard to get volunteers to fill the
sergeant-at-arms position; increasing the scope of the duties seems
unlikely to make that easier.)

> > > person for a list or someone else, but that is a separate

That could be pretty useful...

> > > discussion (which I'd encourage the IESG to have at their

... and need not even wait for IESG action for discussion to start.

-Ben