Re: [ietf-smtp] why I'm discussing the spam filtering problem

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 05 October 2020 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77EE3A0FA0 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.113
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqfN0MMZ2p1K for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A5143A0F9D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id 095Kk7wI012075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:46:07 -0700
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
References: <50ef6e2a-d25a-1a7b-9676-ccd910e2ddd8@network-heretics.com> <7794114.ycBYOQNFYP@zini-1880> <9d765dfa-fc0c-778c-39c6-47ea028243c3@network-heretics.com> <FAF9774D-2712-4733-B61A-57CF2C2ECBE6@wordtothewise.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <3f378323-5780-7b7e-e431-729ec2ff6450@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:42:50 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FAF9774D-2712-4733-B61A-57CF2C2ECBE6@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/BXeUW07GViyZH9DYM4lC-ACCGBY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] why I'm discussing the spam filtering problem
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 20:43:10 -0000

On 10/5/2020 2:29 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
> That statement has gone past passive aggressive and is, itself, hostile. 
> And likely a violation of the list code of conduct.


Seems to have been a popular tone yesterday.  There were multiple 
postings with the problem.

And it isn't getting acknowledged, in spite of its being noted multiple 
times, by at least 3 different people.

And, yeah, it is totally against IETF code of conduct.  Not that that 
gets enforced reliably.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net