Subject: Allowing posting of CFPs

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:48:20 -0500

Hi,

Thus far I have received this CFP (International Conference on Cryptography
...)
on just about every mailing list I am subscribed to. Personally, I consider
this SPAM as it's not coming from a member of the community.  I think we
should only be allowing these postings on a single list and that should be
the IETF discussion.  I will make a confession that as a moderator of many
mailing lists, if I've gotten to these messages before other moderators,
I've NOT been allowing them through except on the architecture discuss
mailing, which is fairly general.   It's junk email IMHO for most of the
RAI area mailing lists.  I can see some of the SEC lists possibly being
relevant although I would think a single posting to an area wide mailing is
all that's appropriate.

I'd be interested to know how others feel.

Mary
WG chair for CLUE and DISPATCH and a couple dozen IAB related mailing lists.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:49:14 -0700

> I'd be interested to know how others feel.

+10

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:53:36 -0700

On 8/27/13 8:48 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thus far I have received this CFP (International Conference on
> Cryptography ...)
> on just about every mailing list I am subscribed to. Personally, I
> consider this SPAM as it's not coming from a member of the community.
>  I think we should only be allowing these postings on a single list
> and that should be the IETF discussion.
They shouldn't be there either.
>  I will make a confession that as a moderator of many mailing lists,
> if I've gotten to these messages before other moderators, I've NOT
> been allowing them through except on the architecture discuss mailing,
> which is fairly general.   It's junk email IMHO for most of the RAI
> area mailing lists.  I can see some of the SEC lists possibly being
> relevant although I would think a single posting to an area wide
> mailing is all that's appropriate. 
>
I discard them when moderating.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:59:03 -0400

For one mail list, I asked the sender not to do it again.

Russ

On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thus far I have received this CFP (International Conference on Cryptography ...)
> on just about every mailing list I am subscribed to. Personally, I consider this SPAM as it's not coming from a member of the community.  I think we should only be allowing these postings on a single list and that should be the IETF discussion.  I will make a confession that as a moderator of many mailing lists, if I've gotten to these messages before other moderators, I've NOT been allowing them through except on the architecture discuss mailing, which is fairly general.   It's junk email IMHO for most of the RAI area mailing lists.  I can see some of the SEC lists possibly being relevant although I would think a single posting to an area wide mailing is all that's appropriate. 
>

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:00:41 +0000

This has been discussed in the past.

There is a distinction between those posted from non-members of the mailing list, and those who are members of the mailing list. 

For non-members of the mailing list I have no compunction about binning them. (For other mails from non-members, I also do not automatically moderate mails through and frequently point them at what I consider to be a more appropriate mailing list - the SIP mailing list used to garner numerous questions about specific voice over IP implementations). Nearly all such conference postings come from list non-members.

For mails from members of the mailing list, obviously they do not automatically go into moderation. Further we have a criteria about the openness of the IETF working groups. I would normally respond to this on a first occasion asking them to justify how the mail advances the work of the working group. I have asked that mailing list members contact the chairs to discuss the appropriateness or not of posting such a call. Repeated postings of such unjustified material would result in my setting the moderation bit. I've only done this once.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: 27 August 2013 16:49
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: IETF WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: Allowing posting of CFPs
>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:00:54 -0400

I'm ok with this if the CFP is really relevant to the scope of the WG.
The best people to judge that are people within the WG. So if a wg 
member posts a relevant CFP to a list I moderate then I'm not likely to 
object. If the CFP comes to me for moderation I *may* allow it if it 
seems relevant without my having to do a lot of research about it. But I 
wouldn't appreciate getting floods of these needing moderation.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:03:08 +0200

> Thus far I have received this CFP (International Conference on Cryptography ...)

I have that source address on auto-discard already...

I don't know if you are into this kind of humor, but have a look at http://www.asdf.org.in

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:03:56 -0500

> This has been discussed in the past.
[MB] Right, however, the problem doesn't seem to be consistently handled by
the current set of WG chairs. [/MB]

>
> There is a distinction between those posted from non-members of the
> mailing list, and those who are members of the mailing list.
>
> For non-members of the mailing list I have no compunction about binning
> them. (For other mails from non-members, I also do not automatically
> moderate mails through and frequently point them at what I consider to be a
> more appropriate mailing list - the SIP mailing list used to garner
> numerous questions about specific voice over IP implementations). Nearly
> all such conference postings come from list non-members.
>
[MB] These are the ones that I have an issue with. [/MB]

>
> For mails from members of the mailing list, obviously they do not
> automatically go into moderation. Further we have a criteria about the
> openness of the IETF working groups. I would normally respond to this on a
> first occasion asking them to justify how the mail advances the work of the
> working group. I have asked that mailing list members contact the chairs to
> discuss the appropriateness or not of posting such a call. Repeated
> postings of such unjustified material would result in my setting the
> moderation bit. I've only done this once.
>
[MB] I totally agree. I would cut folks slack for infrequent postings to a
single mailing list. But, sending to more than a couple is SPAM IMHO.  I
think most areas have area wide mailing lists and I would think if the
poster thinks it might be of interest to multiple WGs in that area, that
should be the only place it gets posted. [/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:07:06 -0500

> I have that source address on auto-discard already...
[MB] I like that idea.  I wonder if we can't go further and ask AMS IT
folks to block it?  We could send a fairly polite message that IETF does
not allow bulk posting to IETF mailing lists in general and in particular
for non-WG members.  I've asked them to do that for another bulk spam we
were getting a couple weeks back, although, it was more than obvious that
it was spam. [/MB]

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:18:44 -0500

On 08/27/2013 10:48 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> consider this SPAM as it's not coming from a member of the community.  I
> think we should only be allowing these postings on a single list and
> that should be the IETF discussion.

Mary: The IETF discussion list is probably not the right place either.

I have been on both sides of the coin, i.e., when I want to post a
CfP and when I have to moderate one.  Here is what I do:

When I want to post a CfP pertinent to a WG list, I usually first send
an email to the WG chairs of the list and ask them permission.  I do
this even if I am subscribed to the list and my posting would normally
be allowed.  In my experience, most WG chairs are happy to oblige if
they are convinced that the CfP is in the pertinent interest of some
of the WG members.  I do think that the IETF draws its share of
academics and I see no harm in allowing CfP that are pertinent to
some members of the WG who may benefit.

When I want to moderate a CfP as a WG chair, then my actions depend on
who is posting the CfP:

   - If it is a WG member who has asked to post the CfP and if the CfP
     is congruent to the workings of the group, I go ahead and give
     permission.
   - If the CfP has been posted by a WG member without consulting chairs
     first, and the CfP is pertinent to the workings of the group, I
     usually allow it through and send a private email to the sender
     asking to be consulted for future CfPs.
   - If the CfP has been posted by a WG member but that WG member has
     only posted CfPs in the past and has not contributed to the
     betterment of the work in the group, then I usually warn the WG
     member that future CfP-only emails will result in loss of posting
     privileges.
   - If the CfP has been posted by a non-member, then it quarantined
     and when I catch up with quarantined email and I feel that the CfP
     is warranted, I will allow it to be posted.
   - If the CfP has been posted by a non-member, then it is quarantined
     and when I catch up with the quarantined email and I feel that
     the CfP is orthogonal to the workings of the group, I reject the
     posting.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:18:49 +0000

> I discard them when moderating.

I just ignore them and let them expire.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:19:55 +0000

Hi,

I have "Subject: .*(CFP|Call for)" in the "header_filter_rules" Option of my mailman lists if a "hold" action, so I can moderate which get through.

Lars

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:22:40 -0700

On 8/27/2013 9:07 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> folks to block it?

I think the answer is yes, but it's per-mailing list.  I don't think 
there can be a 'master' blacklist for the list server, though that 
certainly would be nice.

d/

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:26:06 -0500

> I just ignore them and let them expire.
[MB] But, you'll still reminders that you have messages in the moderator's
queue.  Of course, you can delete those, but it's still yet another email
in your inbox that is junk.[/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:29:22 -0500

That's good when there is the potential for a useful CFP from a member.  In
this particular case, a lot of WG chairs were letting the email through on
lists for which I do not believe it was at all relevant.  I agree with
Vijay's approach and your suggestion is a really good one for handling
member posting.  It's the non-member posting that I'm suggesting would be
better handled if all WG chairs would agree to scrutinize more closely
before letting it through.

Mary.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Eggert, Lars <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have "Subject: .*(CFP|Call for)" in the "header_filter_rules" Option of
> my mailman lists if a "hold" action, so I can moderate which get through.
>
> Lars
>

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:11:43 -0400

For member-originated CFPs my policy was similar to Keith's. The vast 
majority of such postings to the AVTCore list are from outsiders, and in 
fact, from specific individuals who represent one particular 
organization that seems to be in the business of manufacturing holidays 
disguised as meetings. My criterion was always that any 
outside-originated CFP had to pass a strict test of relevance to the WG. 
Apparently my judgement even so was too loose, since there was a 
complaint and now I leave the decision to release announcements to the 
co-Chairs.

Tom Taylor

On 27/08/2013 11:48 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> that should be the IETF discussion. ...

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:21:56 -0400

One thought I meant to expand on in my previous post. These days there 
is apparently a problem with bogus conferences and journals, where 
authors unexpectedly get a big bill for the privilege of being 
published. I'm not sure how much checking of reputation we can or should 
do before allowing a CFP through.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:25:12 +0000

On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Personally, I consider this SPAM as it's not coming from a member of the community. 

You are correct—it is spam.   If they want to announce on IETF mailing lists, they should be talking to the IETF about it, not just doing it.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0700

Hi Tim,
At 10:11 27-08-2013, Tom Taylor wrote:
>For member-originated CFPs my policy was similar to Keith's. The 
>vast majority of such postings to the AVTCore list are from 
>outsiders, and in fact, from specific individuals who represent one 
>particular organization that seems to be in the business of 
>manufacturing holidays disguised as meetings. My criterion was 
>always that any outside-originated CFP had to pass a strict test of 
>relevance to the WG. Apparently my judgement even so was too loose, 
>since there was a complaint and now I leave the decision to release 
>announcements to the co-Chairs.

It's easier to reject, wait for the complaint and then quote the relevant BCP.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:34:59 +0300

I discard/reject unsolicited CFPs routinely when moderating my lists.  I could do an exceptions if the CFP authors contact chairs in advance and the CFP really fits into the scope of the WG.

- Jouni

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:28:22 +0000

Same as Jouni. If the authors of the CFP contact me in advance, or if the sender is a contributor to the list AND I am convinced that the event is related to the WG charter, then I accept the message. Else I discard it. 

Regards,

Dan

> Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:35 PM
> To: Mary Barnes
> Cc: IETF WG Chairs
> I discard/reject unsolicited CFPs routinely when moderating my lists.  I
> could do an exceptions if the CFP authors contact chairs in advance and
> the CFP really fits into the scope of the WG.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> that should be the IETF discussion.  I will make a confession that as a
> moderator of many mailing lists, if I've gotten to these messages before
> other moderators, I've NOT been allowing them through except on the
> architecture discuss mailing, which is fairly general.   It's junk email
> IMHO for most of the RAI area mailing lists.  I can see some of the SEC
> lists possibly being relevant although I would think a single posting to
> an area wide mailing is all that's appropriate.
> >

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:03:08 +0300

> I discard/reject unsolicited CFPs routinely when moderating my lists.  I could do an exceptions if the CFP authors contact chairs in advance and the CFP really fits into the scope of the WG.

I think this is a reasonable approach.

Jari