Subject: On allowing non-subscribed people following our WGs to post

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:55:58 -0700

Greetings. I have been following a particular WG using the IETF IMAP 
server. The chairs asked for input on an important topic, and I send a 
message from my normal address, which was not subscribed to the list. 
Eventually, it was freed from the moderator queue. Someone responded to 
my message, and I responded back. That second message was also 
moderated: that is, the chair that freed my first message did not mark 
my address as always OK to post to the list.

Offline, I asked that the next time I post that the chair take a few 
seconds to, in the same part of the moderation dialog, allow me to 
always post. The response was "Why not subscribe?". I explained that I 
was subscribed through the IMAP list. The response was: "I'm just 
talking about whether I have to manually add everyone that asks to the 
list via the posting permissions list, or just have them subscribe and 
disable the list from copying you. Seems like requiring list owners do 
it manually is just extra work."

We agreed to take the discussion here.

My view is that anyone who wants to contribute to a WG from a consistent 
address (in this case, I used the address from which I'm posting this) 
should be able to do so with a minimum of fuss on the part of the 
poster. Having to wait every time for a moderator to free each message 
means that the person's contributions will be temporarily muted and 
often come out after the discussion has already moved on.

Thoughts?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:01:52 +0100

> often come out after the discussion has already moved on.

I tend to agree. On any of the lists I moderate I always add anyone
who sends a semi-sensible mail to the whitelist. I've never had a
problem result from that.

I do think there's a tooling thing in the pipeline to automate that
so that if you're subscribed to any list you can post to others, but
that'd still leave cases where folks use oddball addresses which does
happen fairly often, e.g. when someone replies from a phone that has
an outbound account that's not subscribed to any IETF lists. So no
mattter how much we automate this, I reckon Paul's right and those of
us who moderate lists are better to handle things as per the above.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:07:00 -0400

> problem result from that.
...

> So no

+1 (both points)

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:11:06 +0000

> address (in this case, I used the address from which I'm posting this) should
> be able to do so with a minimum of fuss on the part of the poster. Having to
> wait every time for a moderator to free each message means that the
> person's contributions will be temporarily muted and often come out after
> the discussion has already moved on.

Are there note well issues here?

Adding folks to the whitelist is easy, but also people do sometimes forget.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:56 -0500

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Eventually, it was freed from the moderator queue. Someone responded to my
> message, and I responded back. That second message was also moderated: that
> is, the chair that freed my first message did not mark my address as always
> OK to post to the list.
>
> seconds to, in the same part of the moderation dialog, allow me to always
> post. The response was "Why not subscribe?". I explained that I was
> subscribed through the IMAP list. The response was: "I'm just talking about
> whether I have to manually add everyone that asks to the list via the
> posting permissions list, or just have them subscribe and disable the list
> from copying you. Seems like requiring list owners do it manually is just
> extra work."
>
> should be able to do so with a minimum of fuss on the part of the poster.
> Having to wait every time for a moderator to free each message means that
> the person's contributions will be temporarily muted and often come out
> after the discussion has already moved on.
>
> Thoughts?

[MB] As a WG chair, I have always set the bit so that subsequent messages
are automatically posted.  I think *once* we get the global whitelist
enabled, this problem will go away - maybe one of the tools folks can
answer that question?
Certainly, WG chairs would like people to subscribe and then they can
configure their subscription to the NoMail option as that does mean we
don't have to deal with the messages ourselves at all.  But, in the spirit
of being "liberal with what you accept", I think that the latter shouldn't
be required nor should every single message get stuck in the moderator's
queue.  [/MB]

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:18:50 -0400

On Mar 29, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> My view is that anyone who wants to contribute to a WG from a consistent address (in this case, I used the address from which I'm posting this) should be able to do so with a minimum of fuss on the part of the poster. Having to wait every time for a moderator to free each message means that the person's contributions will be temporarily muted and often come out after the discussion has already moved on.

For ages I've followed the practice of adding anyone who posts to the whitelist. Given that moderation has already been invoked at that point, it could hardly be any less work than it already is (one checkbox). The suggestion that it's too much work to click the checkbox is baffling, since the likely outcome is repeated trips to the moderation penalty box to release followup messages. I whitelist people mostly out of a selfish desire to minimize my own workload.

I think it still behooves people to generally try to avoid being moderated for anything they think is important, since you can't rely on the moderator to provide instant turnaround.

--John

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:21:47 +0100

> Are there note well issues here?

I don't believe so - a contribution is a contribution regardless
of what sending address one uses.

S

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:56:23 -0400

Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > the IMAP list. The response was: "I'm just talking about whether I have
    > to manually add everyone that asks to the list via the posting
    > permissions list, or just have them subscribe and disable the list from
    > copying you. Seems like
    > requiring list owners do it manually is just extra work."

+1... I also always add their address.

I can see a minor advantage to having the subscription list is that one has a
better idea who is actually reading/lurking..

But, I thought we already had a global whitelist... ?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:20:13 +0000

> I think it still behooves people to generally try to avoid being moderated for anything they think is important, since you can't rely on the moderator to provide instant turnaround.

Agreed. Yes, I whitelist people I recognize and think are sensible. However, I also know that people routinely whittle down the CC's on an email. The fact that you sent them email from your "other" address doesn't mean that you will see a response sent to the list.

If one is actually interested in seeing the responses, I think one would do well to subscribe and use the email address they subscribed with.

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:29:45 -0500

On 3/29/16 11:16 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Greetings. I have been following a particular WG using the IETF
>     IMAP server. The chairs asked for input on an important topic, and
>     I send a message from my normal address, which was not subscribed
>     to the list. Eventually, it was freed from the moderator queue.
>     Someone responded to my message, and I responded back. That second
>     message was also moderated: that is, the chair that freed my first
>     message did not mark my address as always OK to post to the list.
>
>     Offline, I asked that the next time I post that the chair take a
>     few seconds to, in the same part of the moderation dialog, allow
>     me to always post. The response was "Why not subscribe?". I
>     explained that I was subscribed through the IMAP list. The
>     response was: "I'm just talking about whether I have to manually
>     add everyone that asks to the list via the posting permissions
>     list, or just have them subscribe and disable the list from
>     copying you. Seems like requiring list owners do it manually is
>     just extra work."
>
>     My view is that anyone who wants to contribute to a WG from a
>     consistent address (in this case, I used the address from which
>     I'm posting this) should be able to do so with a minimum of fuss
>     on the part of the poster. Having to wait every time for a
>     moderator to free each message means that the person's
>     contributions will be temporarily muted and often come out after
> [MB] As a WG chair, I have always set the bit so that subsequent 
> messages are automatically posted.  I think *once* we get the global 
> whitelist enabled, this problem will go away - maybe one of the tools 
> folks can answer that question?
It will be largely mitigated, but someone would still have to be 
subscribed to at least _one_ list before being put into the global 
whitelist.

FWIW, I haven't implemented changing all the lists to use the global 
whitelist yet - things were too dynamic during the server upgrades, and 
now we're on top of a meeting. I plan to make the change we discussed 
when we're in the post-meeting lull.

RjS
> don't have to deal with the messages ourselves at all.  But, in the 
> spirit of being "liberal with what you accept", I think that the 
> latter shouldn't be required nor should every single message get stuck 
> in the moderator's queue.  [/MB]
>
>
>
>     --Paul Hoffman
>
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:06:42 +0000

Hi Michael,

> But, I thought we already had a global whitelist... ?

Yes. There is. It is called global-whitelist. You can add it to the whitelist
for a given mailing list by using the string @global-whitelist
in the accept field of the non member filters.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:11:44 +0000

I tend to agree with this, and it is a practice I try to follow in NFVRG. The only concern could be whether we should apply some time pattern to avoid “dangling" posters…

On 29 Mar 2016, at 17:55 , Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Greetings. I have been following a particular WG using the IETF IMAP server. The chairs asked for input on an important topic, and I send a message from my normal address, which was not subscribed to the list. Eventually, it was freed from the moderator queue. Someone responded to my message, and I responded back. That second message was also moderated: that is, the chair that freed my first message did not mark my address as always OK to post to the list.

Offline, I asked that the next time I post that the chair take a few seconds to, in the same part of the moderation dialog, allow me to always post. The response was "Why not subscribe?". I explained that I was subscribed through the IMAP list. The response was: "I'm just talking about whether I have to manually add everyone that asks to the list via the posting permissions list, or just have them subscribe and disable the list from copying you. Seems like requiring list owners do it manually is just extra work."

Thoughts?

--Paul Hoffman

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:27:46 -0700

Perhaps we could allow people to subscribe to a mailing list, but choose
"no email delivery" as an option..? (e.g. instead of a yes/no choice for
the digest option can mailman be upgraded to support all email / digest
/ none or something like that?)

Cheers,
-Benson

Robert Sparks wrote:
>>     IMAP server. The chairs asked for input on an important topic,
>>     and I send a message from my normal address, which was not
>>     subscribed to the list. Eventually, it was freed from the
>>     moderator queue. Someone responded to my message, and I responded
>>     back. That second message was also moderated: that is, the chair
>>     that freed my first message did not mark my address as always OK
>>     to post to the list.
>>
> whitelist yet - things were too dynamic during the server upgrades,
> and now we're on top of a meeting. I plan to make the change we
> discussed when we're in the post-meeting lull.
>
> RjS
>> configure their subscription to the NoMail option as that does mean
>> we don't have to deal with the messages ourselves at all.  But, in
>> the spirit of being "liberal with what you accept", I think that the
>> latter shouldn't be required nor should every single message get
>> stuck in the moderator's queue.  [/MB] 
>>
>>
>>
>>     --Paul Hoffman
>>
>>
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:52:42 -0500

> in the accept field of the non member filters.
I still have the action to change all the lists to use this - as I noted 
in a reply to Mary's earlier message, that got deferred during the 
server upgrades. I expect to get this done in the lull after this meeting.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:08:47 -0400

> For ages I've followed the practice of adding anyone who posts to the whitelist. Given that moderation has already been invoked at that point, it could hardly be any less work than it already is (o…

My assumption was that this moderation was primarily meant to catch
spam, so at least on the isis-wg list if your message wasn't spam you
got white-listed.

Thanks,
Chris.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:11:59 -0800

> / none or something like that?)

My initial reaction to reading this was that that would take
us closer to encouraging write-only behavior, but then I realized
that we have enough of that now to suggest that people who can't
be bothered to read aren't finding mailing list subscription a
barrier.  So, I'm good with this, although I do think that it's
orthogonal to the typical case, where someone's responding to
something cross-posted.

Melinda

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:46:09 -0400 (EDT)

> of what sending address one uses.

You have to click through the Note Well to subscribe to any list.
Someone who is not subscribed to any lists might thus have not seen the
Note Well (or at least have plausible deniability), and thus would not
necessarily know of the obligations that accompany that contribution.

When I moderate mail through, I do make some attempt to check that the
sender is aware of the Note Well (usually by being a prominent participant
elsewhere in the IETF).

-Ben

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:58:32 -0400

On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]> wrote:
> "no email delivery" as an option..?

Ask and ye shall receive:

On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Certainly, WG chairs would like people to subscribe and then they can configure their subscription to the NoMail option

("Mail delivery
Set this option to Enabled to receive messages posted to this mailing list. Set it to Disabled if you want to stay subscribed, but don't want mail delivered to you for a while (e.g. you're going on vacation). If you disable mail delivery, don't forget to re-enable it when you come back; it will not be automatically re-enabled.")

You do have to go in and enable it after you subscribe, but that's hardly a big hurdle.

--John

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:07:56 -0700

John G. Scudder wrote:
>
> ("Mail delivery
> Set this option to Enabled to receive messages posted to this mailing
> list. Set it to Disabled if you want to stay subscribed, but don't
> want mail delivered to you for a while (e.g. you're going on
> vacation). If you disable mail delivery, don't forget to re-enable it
> when you come back; it will not be automatically re-enabled.")
>

It would be great if this option could be captured during sign-up.  But
either way, as a chair, I'm glad that people can manage this for
themselves. So that I don't have to add people to the whitelist, etc.
-B

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:34:45 -0700

> necessarily know of the obligations that accompany that contribution.
I don't think this is necessarily true. People can subscribe by going
straight to the mailman listinfo page, or by sending an email command,
etc. Ideally we would send the note well in each subscription
confirmation message. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen in all
cases. It probably should.

-Benson

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:12:24 -0400

In all the lists I’ve ever managed, it’s never been particularly 
onerous to add people to the whitelist for posting — it’s one extra 
click in the mailman interface (and would have saved the WG chair from 
having to free your second message from the queue — much more 
overhead, IMO).

That said, I do think the Note Well consideration is interesting.  That 
is, if it’s someone who doesn’t subscribe to the list under any 
e-mail address, they may not have been alerted to the “Note Well” 
conditions of IETF contribution.

Having recently liberated some very-not-IETF-participant e-mail to get 
to the IANAPLAN mailing list, I wonder if that was a mistake.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 29 Mar 2016, at 11:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> Eventually, it was freed from the moderator queue. Someone responded 
> to my message, and I responded back. That second message was also 
> consistent address (in this case, I used the address from which I'm 
> posting this) should be able to do so with a minimum of fuss on the 
> part of the poster. Having to wait every time for a moderator to free 
> each message means that the person's contributions will be temporarily 
> muted and often come out after the discussion has already moved on.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Paul Hoffman

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:13:37 +0200

Hi,

> server.

Slightly OT, but... the IETF IMAP server? I used the test server back in
the day. It stopped working at some point and I thought that project was
discontinued.

Glad to hear it apparently wasn't - useful thing -, but I don't see info
on ietf.org as to how to subscribe to the prod instance now?

I looked at http://www.ietf.org/list/ now, but to no avail.

Any pointer to the IETF IMAP server subscription / HowTO would be nice.

Stefan

 The chairs asked for input on an important topic, and I send a

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
2, avenue de l'Université
L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:10:58 -0500

> Any pointer to the IETF IMAP server subscription / HowTO would be nice.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/tools/trac/wiki/Imap