Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 16 February 2009 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2123A6A1E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ntSmsQbdOEy for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6F13A693B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id A9EC16BE558; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:20:02 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Message-Id: <20090216222002.A9EC16BE558@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:20:02 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:19:56 -0000

    From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>

    > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

    >> I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe
    >> function disabled for a week.
    >> That seems like a punishment that fits the crime.

    > But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post
    > confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week
    > would be fine with me.

Don't I seem to recall people complaining recently, and with some heat, that
someone was subscribing people to a mailing list, and not letting them
unsubscribe?

Yes, this is different (a week only in the box), and presumably there would
be a warning ('if you subscribe to this list, you'll be here for a minimum of
a week'), but still...

 	Noel