RE: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

I don't think it is helpful for the IETF to describe its work product as 'flavor-of-the-month'.

DKIM is an IETF Proposed Standard.

Using DKIM is thus a dog-food issue. SPF/Sender-ID on the other hand are arguably not at the same status but there is a general consensus amongst the spam community that they help the spam-fighters.

That said, I also +1 on the monthly reminders issue. I would like the monthly reminder to include a NOTE WELL section.

It would also enable services such as allowing mail to be redirected en-mass for a given recipient when they change jobs or email provider. Or simply decide that they would prefer to direct all their IETF mail to another account so they don't run up an incredible bill on the pager.

________________________________

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Rich Kulawiec
Sent: Mon 14/04/2008 2:38 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think there is probably convenience value to housing the mailing lists
> at the IETF.  It allows for a single whitelist, reduction in those
> annoying monthly messages that we eventually all filter into the
> bitbucket.

I'll concur with the general sentiment here, although I don't think
there's any need for DKIM or any of the other related flavor-of-the-month
technologies (SenderID, SPF, etc).

A suggestion -- to Eliot's point about monthly reminders -- would be
to consider consolidating those into a single reminder that covers all
IETF mailing lists.  This would cut down IETF-outbound mail volume as well
as per-recipient inbound mail volume, while (I think) still serving the
same function.

---Rsk
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf