Re: List moderator action

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 28 April 2026 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C72E52BDB5 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1777414688; bh=KfsA9737PEDQFcMYmrNy4eEF6EkvyjTtcINkdXEpBw8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bn5Z+x4UoZhvvjHEHWU8m8m08yQQpd6n/hspBZeMMHn4+G0cPr8zYiGW81jFZHnkh 58tplPG/Aszt1wDPjyJY4Cm2+dwL73+YDxGRq7eMtiXFERdcwy1UT8Qb54QojdOfTK piibwBI+1NJ+LtcsJR+qitOygfsfTGNw8PW0QXjI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.624, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYIyvLdosu8X for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [46.182.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F8FDE52BDA7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local (unknown [89.101.70.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netability.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 693389CDB6; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 23:18:00 +0100 (IST)
Subject: Re: List moderator action
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CACJ6M160zcRWCVr5_NCEZ8u2_iRcozCXAQsrkM2CDJ1Ms+oH8w@mail.gmail.com> <CACJ6M16wV1eqhmGav2dL5fNvwbLVCcLEW0Bto4m-sPu4D69viw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOnLz-Fv_gVAODftZ+=Wk9SkK0c1-1mg-mMnsHGCiyfVuze+BQ@mail.gmail.com> <c90c28ae-5c23-4e35-ad12-482e080595c0@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <1961492b-4225-f84e-b250-0ce42e4eac8b@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 23:17:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 26.4; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.65
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c90c28ae-5c23-4e35-ad12-482e080595c0@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: UMNA73FVIYKVPP2LV7ZYS6JBN2ZFGGC6
X-Message-ID-Hash: UMNA73FVIYKVPP2LV7ZYS6JBN2ZFGGC6
X-MailFrom: nick@foobar.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EGTmE3rmfvRdu4r26gXTSjWifp0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

Stephen Farrell wrote on 28/04/2026 22:16:
> I have some sympathy with the above. IMO we are damaging ourselves
> somewhat by reacting too harshly to DJB's useless footer text. The
> sequence of bans on various lists looks quite silly.

if it had just been an issue of some footer text from a random punter, 
I'm pretty sure it would have been quietly ignored or written off as yet 
more mild eccentricity from yet another ietf participant. The problem 
was that there were legal threats in Dan's emails, allegations of 
criminal activity, abusive language directed at the ietf and its 
participants, unpleasant and demeaning commentary, and a pile other 
unnecessary drama. I'm not much of a fan of restricting peoples' posting 
rights either, but Dan would help his own cause by cutting out the 
invective and generally being a bit more circumspect about which battles 
are worth fighting, and which are not. We all get up on our high horse 
from time to time about something, but it's exhausting when people get 
up on their high horse about everything, all the time.

Nick