Subject: RE: Steps to take to remove posting rights

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:07:01 -0400

I believe a key factor is that multiple list members are actually
complaining to the WG chair about these postings and they are not part
of the discussions of the WG.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Radia Perlman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Working Group Chairs
Cc: Jon Peterson
Subject: Re: Steps to take to remove posting rights

I get conference announcements all the time, and don't pay much
attention, so I don't know if I got any from Chantal. I'm wondering what
exactly defines her postings as spam? Most announcements I get are sent
so that it is either impossible or not obvious how to tell which mailing
list I got it from. I get 10 copies of the same announcement for an
obscure conference, but I haven't been investigating which list I got it
from (easier for me personally to just delete it, even if 10 times). But
anyway, I'm wondering what makes Chantal's postings qualify as spam. Is
it:

a) any conference announcements to IETF lists is verboten and is spam?
b) indiscriminate conference announcements to IETF lists (as in, one on
a chip design conference to the Kerberos list) are spam?
c) more than one announcement to the same conference to the same list is
spam?
d) certain types of conferences are spam, others are OK? (how to tell
the difference?)
e) something else?

So, can someone explain why people are unhappy about this poster?

Radia

Cullen Jennings wrote:

>I've been trying to talk to Chantal but she is on vacation till Monday.

>Her work number is 33 1 53 46 63 80. (No don't everyone phone her, spam

>in not the solution to spam) Based on other peoples experience, it 
>seemed unlikely that I was going to get anywhere with a phone call but 
>I thought it was worth a shot. I imagine it would be better coming from
Brian than me.
>
>
>On 4/7/06 2:49 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Spam is spam. I don't think our open access requirement means that we 
>>need to treat Chantal The Sweet (that's what her name
>>means) as a disruptive participant, i.e. apply RFC 3934.
>>
>>Under the existing IESG statements you are entitled to run spam 
>>filters and to moderate WG lists. I see no reason why setting a 
>>specific filter for this email address would be an issue (if we're 
>>being picky, tell both that email address and the WG that you're doing

>>so as a spam filtering action.)
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
>>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
>>
>>I doubt the effectiveness of me writing to her. If someone can forward

>>me a recent example I will do so, but don't expect much. I never see 
>>these things, so I'd guess I have upperside somewhere in my personal 
>>filters.
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I have received a number of private responses saying that these folks

>>>were spamming a number of WG mailing lists besides SIPPING. I am 
>>>going to go ahead flag them as moderated, so that I get to approve or

>>>reject all their postings thru the list's administrative interface. I

>>>guess that is the easiest way to proceed.
>>>
>>>If they do something like using a different email address to continue

>>>sending spam to the list, I will take further measures.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Gonzalo
>>>
>>>
>>>Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi Gonzalo,
>>>>We could go the RFC 3934 route though we would have to discuss it it

>>>>was appropriate. It is only a 30 day suspension so the effort may be

>>>>more than the gain. It certainly sounds like a hard route to me. 
>>>>I've got an alternative hair brain proposal that we might 
>>>>consider....
>>>>
>>>>Let's phone someone at 
>>>>http://www.upperside.fr/home/aboutus/aboutus.htm
>>>>And point out that their conferences make money basically be people 
>>>>from our type of companies getting presentation from presenters that

>>>>include many IETF people. I notice some familiar looking names on 
>>>>http://www.upperside.fr/intersip05/sip2005committee.htm :-) If you 
>>>>are sick of their email on the lists, I'm personally willing to tell

>>>>the people I know that I'm not going to their conferences until they

>>>>stop spamming IETF lists and they should consider doing the same. We

>>>>could point out that none of the competitors are sending spam to the

>>>>lists. If they agree they should not send stuff to the ietf lists, 
>>>>we could ask them if they would like the ietf list admins to just 
>>>>block their posts so that they don't have to go to any of the bother

>>>>of updating their email lists.
>>>>
>>>>I'm basically trying to move the spam to have a negative economic 
>>>>value instead of positive. This seems like it has some chance of 
>>>>resolving the issue so we might try it first. This could be as 
>>>>simple as no one at the right level in upperside realizes that many 
>>>>of the list users consider this inappropriate use of the lists.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know Remi or Michel at upperside? Would they be willing 
>>>>to have a non antagonistic conversation with them and see if they 
>>>>know this is causing some angst?
>>>>
>>>>Cullen
>>>>PS  - How is that CONSENT framework for forwarding lists going :-)
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>On 3/30/06 3:24 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" 
>>>><[email-masked]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>the SIPPING mailing list has been receiving conference 
>>>>>announcements from the following email address for a while:
>>>>>
>>>>>Chantal Ladouce <[email-masked]>
>>>>>
>>>>>We have warned him several times that he should not send that type 
>>>>>of advertisement to the mailing list (some folks complained about 
>>>>>him), but he has ignored us continuously.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to remove his posting rights. What are the steps I 
>>>>>should take in order to do that? I guess I should inform someone 
>>>>>before going ahead block him in the administrative interface of the

>>>>>mailing list, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Additionally, I know that other chairs have faced the same problem 
>>>>>with the same person. Please, let me know if you are one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>Gonzalo