Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Wfm. 

d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net

via mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then talked
myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a reasonable
suggestion.

I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example though,
so how about compromise text:

ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.

?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>wrote:

> On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly
> threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything
> you post or constantly calls you an asshole.
>
> Better I think:
>
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.
>
> [The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
> definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.  Harassment
> most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
> checker seems to agree ;-)]
>
> I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for completeness...
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>