Subject: IESG as members of WG list

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:06:24 -0500

I seem to recall that a while back we were advised to add the IESG and maybe 
another entity to our WG subscription list so they could post to it. It suddenly 
occurs to me that every poster to the list since then has gotten a request for 
confirmation from the IESG list, just as I have this evening. Yikes! I guess 
that address should have the nomail option.

Tom Taylor

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:24:15 -0500

-- On February 3, 2009 11:06:24 PM -0500 Tom Taylor 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding IESG as members of WG list --

> I seem to recall that a while back we were advised to add the IESG
> and maybe another entity to our WG subscription list so they could
> post to it. It suddenly occurs to me that every poster to the list
> since then has gotten a request for confirmation from the IESG list,
> just as I have this evening. Yikes! I guess that address should have
> the nomail option.

If I understand what you're saying here I don't think you quite have 
the right configuration.

I think you're saying that you added "[email-masked]" to your subscriber 
list.  If that's true, that will not permit IESG members to post to 
your list.  What you need to do is add the actual IESG member email 
addresses to the "authorized to submit list".

Specifically, under "Privacy Options" -> "Sender Filters", there is a 
section for Non-Member Filters.  In there you will find a box with the 
label "List of non-member addresses whose postings should be 
automatically accepted.".  It is in that box you need to place the IESG 
email addresses, not the address of the iesg mailing list.

Did I understand you correctly?

Jim

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:26:52 -0500

Yes, I'll fix it now. On reflection, it's obvious that what I did didn't make 
sense. From eye to fingers without passing through the brain, I guess.

James M Galvin wrote:
> If I understand what you're saying here I don't think you quite have the 
> right configuration.
> 
> list.  If that's true, that will not permit IESG members to post to your 
> list.  What you need to do is add the actual IESG member email addresses 
> to the "authorized to submit list".
>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:22:24 -0800

1. I thought IETF spam policy was that if you were a member of any IETF list
    you didn't get filtered for any other list hosted at ietf.org. No?
2. Is there some reason the secretariat can't simply add iesg members to
    the appropriate filter for every WG list? Having the WG chairs do it
    seems pretty error prone.

-Ekr

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:24 AM, James M Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> -- On February 3, 2009 11:06:24 PM -0500 Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
> wrote regarding IESG as members of WG list --
>
> list.  What you need to do is add the actual IESG member email addresses to
> the "authorized to submit list".
>
> section for Non-Member Filters.  In there you will find a box with the label
> "List of non-member addresses whose postings should be automatically
> accepted.".  It is in that box you need to place the IESG email addresses,
> not the address of the iesg mailing list.
>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:20:23 -0500

-- On February 4, 2009 6:22:24 AM -0800 Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> 
wrote regarding Re: IESG as members of WG list --

> 1. I thought IETF spam policy was that if you were a member of any
> IETF list     you didn't get filtered for any other list hosted at
> ietf.org. No?

There are two levels of filtering going on.  There is Henrik's 
postconfirm which sits in front of Mailman.  (Actually, I think it sits 
in the SMTP server but I'm not sure.  If it matters I'm sure Henrik can 
speak up about it.)  The first level of filtering operates just as you 
say.

Next there is Mailman's filtering.  Each list has its own whitelist of 
who is permitted to submit messages.  It is this second level of 
filtering that Tom Taylor is speaking about.

> 2. Is there some reason the secretariat can't simply
> add iesg members to     the appropriate filter for every WG list?
> Having the WG chairs do it     seems pretty error prone.

Yes, there is.  Mailman really isn't designed for site-wide management. 
In contrast, it's quite good on a per list basis.

There are some tools that would be useful to the secretariat, one of 
which is updating certain settings in all lists.  Mailman comes with a 
tool that facilitates this but the problem is it's an all or nothing 
tool (like most tools).

So, for the case in question, what you need to do is first grab the 
configuration of a list, grab the existing value of the appropriate 
setting from the configuration, merge as needed, and then reset the 
configuration.

But, by the way, you can not "lock out" other changes while you're 
doing this.  Mailman doesn't support this.

Thus, while such an update is likely to be quick, measured in seconds 
if not less on a per list basis, there's always the chance that a list 
owner will do something while the secretariat is doing something.

Now, I realize that none of this is insurmountable.  I'm really just 
pointing out it's not as trivial as it sounds, at least if you want to 
do it right and avoid problems.

This particular item is probably worthy of being put on a list of 
things to do, with some kind of priority.  It's really only an issue 
once a year, when the list of IESG members changes.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's probably possible to setup a 
default in the Mailman template configuration that includes all IESG 
email addresses.  This would setup new lists such that they have the 
correct set of email addresses at least initially.  Then it would only 
be necessary to update the list once a year.  It is the maintenance on 
a per list basis that can be at least a little bit tricky if the 
secretariat is trying to do all lists.

A similar type of issue exists for maintaining the wgchairs list itself.

Jim

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:04:30 -0500

Tom:

If you are subscribed to _any_ mail list hosted at ietf.org, then you 
should not be seeing a request for confirmation.  Please forward the 
one you got to me.

Russ

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:22:23 -0800

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:20 AM, James M Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> There are some tools that would be useful to the secretariat, one of which
> is updating certain settings in all lists.  Mailman comes with a tool that
> facilitates this but the problem is it's an all or nothing tool (like most
> tools).
>
> configuration of a list, grab the existing value of the appropriate setting
> from the configuration, merge as needed, and then reset the configuration.
>
> But, by the way, you can not "lock out" other changes while you're doing
> this.  Mailman doesn't support this.
>
> Thus, while such an update is likely to be quick, measured in seconds if not
> less on a per list basis, there's always the chance that a list owner will
> do something while the secretariat is doing something.
>
> pointing out it's not as trivial as it sounds, at least if you want to do it
> right and avoid problems.

Sure, but asking the WG chairs to do it has some fairly obvious problems,
namely that it's incredibly low priority for them and they probably won't do
it.

-Ekr

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:28:54 -0500

I see that I misunderstood your message and that Jim has provided you 
the information that you need.

Russ

At 10:04 AM 2/4/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
>Tom:
>
>If you are subscribed to _any_ mail list hosted at ietf.org, then 
>you should not be seeing a request for confirmation.  Please forward 
>the one you got to me.
>
>Russ
>
>>since then has gotten a request for confirmation from the IESG 
>>list, just as I have this evening. Yikes! I guess that address 
>>should have the nomail option.
>>
>>Tom Taylor
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:32:17 -0500

You interpreted the posting the same way I did.  Based on the 
response that Jim provides and Tom acknowledged, that was not the 
question at all ....

Russ

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:59:22 -0500

No, I was careless in my analysis. The sender was [email-masked], 
definitely and fortunately not a subscriber, given the number of instances of 
sender forgery I see every day.

I'm not exactly covering myself with glory in this thread :(

Russ Housley wrote:
> should not be seeing a request for confirmation.  Please forward the one 
> you got to me.
> 
> Russ
> 
>> I seem to recall that a while back we were advised to add the IESG and 
>> maybe another entity to our WG subscription list so they could post to 
>> it. It suddenly occurs to me that every poster to the list since then 
>> has gotten a request for confirmation from the IESG list, just as I 
>> have this evening. Yikes! I guess that address should have the nomail 
>> option.
>>
>> Tom Taylor
>>
> 
> 
>

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:14:11 -0800

As a general rule for the list I manage I typcially whitelist any poster
who is contributing to the list, the first time they appear in the
moderation queue. I'm not convinced that anything additional is required
unless moderators simply aren't paying attention.

joelja