Re: Blue sheet harvest

Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU> Fri, 04 April 2008 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B1328C6CB; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BAC3A6922; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.849
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AWuc2NPacsbg; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF18628C775; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m34LS8xX020846 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m34LS8tq020845; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:28:08 -0700
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Blue sheet harvest
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc:,, "Scott O. Bradner" <>, Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 03:14:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:08:41AM -0400, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> > > < it started w/ folsk scanning the pages of the early bound
> > > < copies of IETFF proceedings.
> > > 
> > > the sheets are no longer included in the proceedings
> > 
> > 	right - the point is that this has been a problem 
> > 	for years.
> How is this a problem if the pages are no longer being included?

	the sheets still circulate.  :)

> Do people seriously think (or fear) they are are getting scanned in
> the room?

	i have emperical evidence of the fact.

> Or the Secretariat is scanning them and selling them to list brokers
> to fund the cookies and soda?  :-)

	that is beyond my paygrade.

> It seems almost as if this is more of a perception problem than one
> where there is an actual issue with e-mails going to spammers given
> the current arrangement.

	perhaps so.  the question was raised, responses were given
	and judgement has occured.  some think it is a real issue, others
	think its a non-issue and a waste of time.  and perhaps both are
	right in their own narrow pov.  for me, the blue sheet issue 
	first drove me to sign & then not provide an email address. these days
	when I do attend an IETF, I don't sign at all. Of course i don't 
	say much, if anything, so as not to run afoul of the other legal
	strictures placed on IETF participants.

	Now Scott claims this is not honest. I will need to spend some
	time trying to understand why refusing to participate in all
	aspects of a strictly voluntary process is dishonest. 

> 					- Ted


Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

IETF mailing list