Subject: Re: Steps to take to remove posting rights

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:27:40 +0300

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:49:49 +0200

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

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:44:59 +0200

I know Chantal, she is not a spammer. She is working in the marketing
section of a company organizing conferences where many people active at
the IETF already participated (she is usually at the conferences
themselves welcoming the people). Probably someone needs to fax her that
her behavior on the MLs doesn't correspond to the IETF etiquette. 

I guess she just treats the IETF mailing lists as other announcement MLs.

Thierry.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:49:49 +0200

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:05:42 +0300

Hi,

> Probably someone needs to fax her that

I already sent her several emails during the last few months... she did 
not even reply to them.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:36:22 +0200

Did you try fax?

+ 33 1 53 46 63 85

according to Google.

    Brian

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 08:23:36 -0700

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.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:06:57 -0700

Thierry, if you know her personally, you should let her know that she 
(and the other marketing folks like her) have ruined her company's 
reputation in an important market.

Like others on this list, I have written to them about the 
inappropriate postings, gotten no reply, and gotten more 
inappropriate postings. What I do now is to contact IETFers I see on 
their speaker lists, tell them the problem, and suggest that they not 
speak at the conferences run by spammers. I believe I have been 
successful in getting some speakers to pull out.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:27:04 -0700

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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:43:33 -0400

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

RFC 3683 specifically bars "announcements of conferences, events, or
activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society
or IETF".  The Upperside postings are sometimes relevant to the WG,
sometimes not.  They're not disguised in any way, or at least they
weren't; they're coming from list subscribers, and are addressed to the
WG mailing list. 

In other words, they're hard to miss, and it's hard (at least for me)
to conclude anything other than that they know exactly what they're
doing and simply don't care that we don't like it.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb