Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence

[Dotzero <[e-mail]>]

My guess is "need more patience grasshopper".

I didn't respond to your post because I haven't read your draft yet
(light reading for the weekend?) although it is on my to-do list. I've
read your posts on other lists and you seem a reasonable person so I
do plan on taking the time to read the draft.

Some of us have day jobs that have to take a priority to reading and responding.

Lastly, the level of discussion on ASRG hasn't gotten me overly
excited overall in quite some time so I don't always pay as close
attention to the flow of posts as I might on some other lists.



On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Alessandro Vesely<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I've only been subscribed to this list for 18 months, so you will forgive me
> if I haven't yet grasped how it works. I've been receiving spam for much
> longer than that, and lazily waited for someone to reel off the rules to
> kill that plague. It never happened. Why? When I subscribed, I thought I'd
> at least understand that...
>
> Understanding this list's dynamics is not easier. As in many lists, messages
> that start a new thread are relatively rare. I don't have message-per-thread
> statistics, but usually there are many responses. Some messages get no
> response; for example, Frank sent a message on Spam Statistics on April 28,
> and nobody answered, AFAIK.
>
> In particular, I'm puzzled as to why I got no answer to my yesterday's
> message. A previous message by Amir, DNS-based Email Sender Authentication
> Mechanisms: a Critical Review, had several responses. The subject of my I-D
> is almost the same, an SMTP extension to manage those authentication
> mechanisms. However, I had exactly zero response. The same happened for a
> similar message I sent on May 25. I cannot believe it is by chance. Since it
> happened twice in a row, there has to be a sound reason.
>
> Possible guesses:
>
> * Because nobody is interested in the subject.
> Already ruled out: it is the same subject of Amir's paper (rDNS, SPF, DKIM,
> and the like.) How come nobody is interested?
>
> * Because nobody has the time to retrieve the I-D from the web.
> Doesn't work, by the same argument nobody would have read Amir's paper.
>
> * Because it is poorly written.
> Well, my English is not that good, but used to be readable. Also, at first I
> thought an I-D's introduction should only give a hint at interpreting the
> behavior described in the rest of the text, in order to let readers draw the
> consequences more freely. Now I've changed it to describe the use model. I
> admit that's confusing, but not to the point of not discussing it: in facts,
> I've discussed it with a handful of people already, but never on a list.
> Hm... _that_'s puzzling.
>
> * Because it is written by me.
> Naah... paranoid.
>
> * Because nobody is interested in yet another anti-spam tool.
> I could understand that. But this does not explain why everyone resisted to
> the temptation of telling me why I'm an asshole.
>
> * Because someone wrote privately to everyone banning public answers.
> Unbelievable, paranoid, I don't think would ever have worked as intended.
>
> * Because vhlo is not endorsed by John.
> Not really. John himself told me to write to the list. Possibly, he did not
> answer because he wanted to see if anybody _else_ was interested.
>
> * Because it is not endorsed by the IESG.
> Uh? What is the IESG?
>
> * Because the referred paper is an I-D.
> Hmm... this list has been discussing I-Ds before. However, it may be that a
> public message about an I-D would have be classified as rough dissension and
> thereby commit the IETF to do something with it, such as assigning it a
> "dead" state. I'm not much into the standardization process, but such a rule
> would seem too bureaucratically silly to be operative.
>
>
> Yet, it happens every time. I bet I can reproduce that behavior
> consistently, look at this: "Hey, I've written take 3". See any response?
> No. So, why?
>
> FWIW, and for your convenience, I paste below the original text that
> inspired the title of this rant.
>
>
> Hello darkness my old friend,
> I've come to talk with you again
> Because a vision softly creeping
> left it's seeds while I was sleeping
> And the vision that was planted in my brain
> still remains, within the sounds of silence
>
> In restless dreams I walked alone,
> narrow streets of cobblestone
> 'neath the halo of a streetlamp
> I turned my collar to the cold and damp
> when my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
> split the night... and touched the sound of silence
>
> And in the naked light I saw
> ten thousand people maybe more
> people talking without speaking
> people hearing without listening
> people writing songs that voices never share
> noone dare, disturb the sound of silence
>
> Fools said I you do not know,
> silence like a cancer grows,
> hear my words that I might teach you
> take my arms that I might reach you
> but my words, like silent raindrops fell...
> and echoed the will of silence
>
> And the people bowed and prayed,
> to the neon god they made
> And the sign flashed out its warning
> in the words that it was forming
> And the sign said, "The words of the prophets
> are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls
> and whisper the sounds of silence.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>