Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with [censored]

SM <> Wed, 23 October 2013 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D39A11E82DC for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCBhncXlrcLF for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4386E11E80DE for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9N5ggGo028569; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1382506967; bh=Y4ew7XGUM5aBu0QrmKnCh6d+4MSz77eL5B2Caq1QcBo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rk7Bv+cGdPmT/GsBolw7yVd0qyYOgpTuiGQ5eZOrJdibOgEniyMOuHoYeRCh7KEUZ GVKDFggjyj8EjYXWXiclV5IWbP33PV8nV/E9BUgKm8GdwFkHJB8neq+KyPGpbQ6/s5 SrGUS1Udh9orfgCIemhYTyX1Edr4+OoO1BqIH1wg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1382506967;; bh=Y4ew7XGUM5aBu0QrmKnCh6d+4MSz77eL5B2Caq1QcBo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=q8gwyLPObGRwgOeQ8RloUPF4eSpcsRoUdxqst3qwMrKtTxE/RkABlwXvhme2JLLrZ dq/RGVOOXoqOhE+GlBwhVjXKBR9VSkqX6r8QY9ga9gvHfLEAnvYObFhRTDa4oy94ZQ 6DRTZ0M5wKz99h4SdGt3r/MvBpaHxU5sbE6YKF6o=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:37:20 -0700
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with [censored]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: "<>" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:42:56 -0000

Hi Jordi,
At 15:01 22-10-2013, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I may have worded out too quickly my email, and actually looks like it was
>more important for my decision the anonymity issue vs the off-top
>question, but is still my opinion that this address must be banned.
>We could take a decision on future anonymous postings, if required, I'm
>always pro-privacy, but I don't think this is applicable in IETF works,
>and this include exploders. Again this is my personal point of view.

There was a decision to ban (see above) an email address because of 
two messages sent to the mailing list.  I read the mailing list 
archive and did not find any warning.  The advice given was:

   "If you decide to identify yourself, as the rest of the posters, and be
    on-topic, you will be allowed to post again."

I read the quoted text (see above).  I cannot tell which part of it 
is a personal opinion and which part is the opinion of the 
sergeant-at-arms.  The decision comes out as "I don't like what you 
said.  The explanation for my decision might not be that good but I 
already made up my mind".  The rest of the posters do not identify 
themselves unless a person considers that [local-part] 
conveys any meaningful information.