Re: A mailing list protocol

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Sun, 09 December 2012 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4016421F8D22 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:21:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.445
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vy1Jrbp0ZmPs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:21:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from secure.winserver.com (mail.santronics.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B19321F8D20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:21:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=747; t=1355088067; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=62pDJFAcyPOoJfOcqxoli5CvswI=; b=Q+3bf/CboIocLNWuCebl v+zruPE0wwQYB4C7W1dddLuUQ8cTstPlJRVYXb+e2CpukZQWy0L8BgmIbKgkOBSx GUU4VsWRJcSYpFHEiNyrMPN2Zi1VAWwR2M0EpFIZAyXblUxhQF5h5mIYEjnHPP5s WdePxi6mSqtdAr61u0IBIjo=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:21:07 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from hector.wildcatblog.com ([208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 2519822963.15845.3480; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:21:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=747; t=1355088064; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=UWEdzp8 QYxK1V2wJN6zVw7+RGyV7swqNvBxSQKj+KeE=; b=0jcYA6/hrJtrDOpMETkRngq K3ExPWodUJYnEz6qiv03MBITHW+Ds0r5PC3OKOnwL/YUJHgiV3TrUiZ628XZS2WE vg/JqYBV5HF1di8Uqz9xCnSazi0UKuCgFh+dinukRpdNyovvxdxDiI3lWCyvzL52 PPQwW8b31QSC80pwY4BM=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:21:04 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([99.3.147.93]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 3118547288.10.4616; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:21:03 -0500
Message-ID: <50C500F6.3070704@isdg.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:21:58 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A mailing list protocol
References: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230338CCCD84@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <20121206212400.10366.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20121209105838.09574c88@resistor.net> <50C4F73A.1050707@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50C4F73A.1050707@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:21:10 -0000

Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 12/9/12 10:43 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> I would like to ask you to pick the three points from Section 2 (
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-mail-list-protocol-00 ) which
>> you consider as helpful to facilitate mailing list discussion and send
>> them to me off-list.  I'll post a summary to this mailing list after a
>> week.
> 
> I'm increasingly not a fan of process documents.  It may be the case
> that we need a process document addressing the problem of excessive
> process documents.  I hope that where your efforts end up is a wiki
> page or some such, which I think would be helpful, rather than an RFC,
> which I think would not.
> 
> Melinda

+1, thank you for speaking up.

-- 
HLS