Subject: sending comments from reviews

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:56:14 +0300

Hi,

Our PROTO discussion on this list revealed some issues in how we 
communicate to the shepherds, authors and other relevant parties. We 
have now implemented a few small changes:

1. The Note field in the IESG agendas will contain the shepherd's name. 
This has not been the case today for most documents. From now on, the 
secretary will fill in the field upon receiving a publication request. 
As always, remember to send your publication requests to 
[email-masked] (and CC the AD) so that notes, writeups, and 
other fields get set correctly. Drafts that are already in the 
publication process may not have the note field set correctly.

2. We will ensure that the tracker update messages go to the shepherd as 
well. This has been mostly the case today already, particularly when the 
shepherds are WG chairs. Again the secretary will ensure the correct 
e-mail address is in the tracker's "notify" field. This change also 
improves sending Discusses and Comments to the right recipients.

3. With help from Henrik (much appreciated!), we have expanded the set 
of available tools.ietf.org addresses:

draft-foo-bar@               Authors (what we have had already)
draft-foo-bar.authors@       Authors
draft-foo-bar.chairs@        Chairs (if relevant)
draft-foo-bar.notify@        Addresses from the email notify field from 
the tracker
draft-foo-bar.all@           All of the recipients above and the 
sponsoring AD

So, review comments etc should most likely be sent to 
[email-masked] address to ensure that the comments are 
seen by not just the authors, but also by the relevant AD, shepherd, and 
chairs. These addresses are in alpha testing, so if you see a problem or 
have any other feedback, let us know.

Jari

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:00:17 -0400

> draft-foo-bar.all@           All of the recipients above and the

Jari,

because of the spammers and how we currently fight against them,
sometimes these emails get dropped and do not arrive to destination...

reminder: it might happen that sometimes the target individual never see
these emails. I don't have a good proposal to fix this, but just a reminder.

Marc.

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 17:11:45 +0300

Marc,

> these emails. I don't have a good proposal to fix this, but just a reminder.

Yes -- I am aware of this. Its not so much the spam prevention AFAIK (or 
am I missing something?), but rather how people set up their e-mail 
filters. I have no simple fix for that. My personal filters are set up 
to get high priority treatment for mail addressed to me personally or at 
wg-ads@ or iesg@ and 2-3 select draft name addresses. The rest goes to 
the general folder, which I read less frequently. With the new addresses 
I probably need to put .all@ for high priority treatment as well.

Jari

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:26:27 +0300

Jari and Marc, 

Please take into account that many of us have corporate spam blockers
before our own filters.

These may completely delete suspect emails (according to various criteria),
and the only remedy is a time-consuming process of asking our MIS staff
to manually configure white-lists.

I'll ask for [email-masked] to be white-listed.

Y(J)S

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 13:04:46 +0200

On 2009-05-31 07:26 Yaakov Stein said the following:
...
> I'll ask for [email-masked] to be white-listed.

There is of course a lot of spam coming in to these addresses, just as there is
to any address that can be harvested from somewhere on the internet.  Spam scanning
is being done routinely at tools.ietf.org, but there is always some spam that will
get through.  Since these aliases are now getting more and more use, I've been
looking at how I can use the 'postconfirm' system already in place in front of the
ietf mailing lists also for these addresses.  I now have a plan for that which will
permit a distributed use of 'postconfirm' without requiring multiple confirmations,
and expect to have it in place by the end of June.

Best,

	Henrik