Subject: Re: spam from upperside.fr

From: "Michael Sneed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:51:21 -0500

I think item 6) pretty much obviates the need for a response or its 
retention as far as most spam is concerned.  Almost all of the spam we get 
is obviously not topical.  What is interesting about this case is that some 
people seem to be willing to tolerate it, and therefore rejecting it does 
require some thought.

This is surprising to me, and I only posed the question to determine the 
extent of the problem.  If we are willing to tolerate "good spam", should we 
also permit postings advertising printer cartridges, since most of us use 
those occasionally as well?  Or maybe only posters advertising "high 
quality" printer cartridges.  Does rejecting such postings require WG 
consent?

Regards,

Mike

>From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
>CC: Michael Sneed <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: spam from upperside.fr
>Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:35:16 -0500
>
>This link reminds of one aspect of the process where postings from 
>non-members to Megaco became moderated: it was done with the consent of the 
>members of the list.  Similarly, if you have had no complaints about 
>Upperside but feel they are a nuisance, you should consult with your list 
>on whether they think postings from Peter Lewis should be moderated.
>
>There was one point in the list of guidelines that worries me: the 
>requirement that copies of rejected postings be retained for a reasonable 
>period.  Maybe this comes under the "obvious irrelevance" exception, but 
>when I go through the Megaco list of postings from outsiders, I use the 
>Mailman web interface.  I tick off the ones to be deleted (most of them) 
>and as far as I know, they disappear.  Does Mailman hang on to them at all, 
>or should we screen-scrape any postings we are rejecting/deleting that seem 
>like they may be controversial?
>
>Tom Taylor
>
>Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>>In message <[email-masked]>, "Michael Sneed" 
>>writes:
>>
>>>The adslmib list has been getting spammed recently by a "list member".  
>>>This member is subscribed with the "nomail" flag set, and generally posts 
>>>advertisements for conferences via "upperside.fr".
>>>
>>>We are apparently not the only recipients of these "gifts".  Has anyone 
>>>else had a problem with these guys?  I have warned him, but it hasn't 
>>>helped.
>>>
>>
>>
>>See http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
>>
>>You can also ask your AD to ask the IESG to ban the list member.
>>
>>
>>		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Enjoy MSN 8 patented spam control and more with MSN 8 Dial-up Internet 
Service.  Try it FREE for one month!   http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:34:43 -0500

I could cop out in the particular case and say Upperside is different 
because Peter Lewis has registered as a list member.  However, I feel 
your general point does need to be addressed.  I have criteria in my own 
mind that distinguish acceptable from unacceptable spam.  I'm willing to 
state them, but you've made me realize that I did not check them out 
with my list membership.  The concern is not so much with the ones I let 
through -- list members can see those and complain about my decisions if 
they are so inclined.  What they can't see are the ones I've blocked. 
Fortunately the issue arises only once or twice a year, so I'm not too 
worried.  The questionable ones I've discarded IIRC are repetitions of 
those I let through.

My criteria?  The topic has to relate to some aspect of VoIP, since that 
is what Megaco is about.  The organization has to be reasonably 
non-commercial, and definitely not vendor-specific.  And I only allow 
one posting of a given message.

As for the Upperside postings, one can use the administrative interface 
to moderate postings by individual members.  I believe one would have to 
get consent first from the list and then from the IESG, for the criteria 
used to filter the messages.

Michael Sneed wrote:

> retention as far as most spam is concerned.  Almost all of the spam we 
> get is obviously not topical.  What is interesting about this case is 
> that some people seem to be willing to tolerate it, and therefore 
> rejecting it does require some thought.
> 
> extent of the problem.  If we are willing to tolerate "good spam", 
> should we also permit postings advertising printer cartridges, since 
> most of us use those occasionally as well?  Or maybe only posters 
> advertising "high quality" printer cartridges.  Does rejecting such 
> postings require WG consent?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:22:06 -0800 (PST)

To paraphrase Scott Bradner in Vienna, "no, no, and no".

In own my humble yet spectacularly correct (in this case)
personal opinion...

Spencer