IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 11 June 2021 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 11C703A460D; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Xv6iYzrI7XLP; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39193A45E4; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lriLE-0008t4-Gq; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:41:00 -0400
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:40:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed ietf.org email address policy
Message-ID: <B1B01A33410EEFCB89C5679D@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <2BF6EC60-8B32-4171-B236-D9D038B3135B@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <59562F9B-8DDE-408C-ACCD-BC087FE86E1A@ietf.org> <2BF6EC60-8B32-4171-B236-D9D038B3135B@yahoo.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gmnfeQGFjrLR-f4gLDMuFVLnXHY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:41:06 -0000


--On Friday, June 11, 2021 16:35 +1000 Lloyd W
<lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Has the IESG considered renting out @member.ietf.org or
> @supporter.ietf.org addresses as a potential revenue stream?
> Throw in a free github account to sweeten the deal and so that
> access to discussion is not unnecessarily limited.

Lloyd,

Prior experience with people being allowed to set up
IETF-provided mailing lists for discussions that seemed rather
far out on the edges of IETF work, deliberate misrepresentations
of Informational RFCs or even I-Ds as IETF standards, etc.,
suggests that it would be a small jump from
troll@member.ietf.org (and what is a "Member" or the IETF
anyway?), disrupter@supporter.ietf.org, or even
nutcase@participant.ietf.org from even worse misrepresentations
about positions and authority.

So I think this idea goes into the "proceed carefully and be
careful what you wish for" category even if not in the "just
plain bad idea" one.

best,
   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email