Re: Postel's Principle and Layer 9 protocol engineering

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 06 June 2021 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 4497E3A28A6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=xJdODne5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=igvWAqIC
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 j9yG_YT9cy3Y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A37D33A28A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 14:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26010 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2021 21:14:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=658e.60bd3acf.k2106; bh=spKZI4cfgqIp6rQ/a4g0h7yfTmx3Ytv/TyM90qc0L3w=; b=xJdODne57pn4SR7QQ/KCPX8OKeiT9wHUGPUJsTUDqEIKUeVUaaYrGxlQDEwFE9Cp63QI5kOu5e5djnemqYvC4bs+cJvAxORJl2mo0ab91nMw9QsIfyw4uw85TlYtJqGvGRTplsTFHP7MHxXdlX08vJrJyFko930JTdLtrqB9CufCKVWgQ/dNGMG4pKdxjIHSh/6UEKq66ukAIlsLuF97gpyDSouwIn9i6PXgrf7hYxCGCSgJ+2qBY0FamtQt4yI89QuaGw5VerBikeOF2qYAhwdL8ZcqIDlSQc8iGk4RdweYGgtVmaJzt494HSaqcOxtjzRZXeVoibivVCW8SDek2w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=658e.60bd3acf.k2106; bh=spKZI4cfgqIp6rQ/a4g0h7yfTmx3Ytv/TyM90qc0L3w=; b=igvWAqIChqszc4HSDIZKuC9wm6nUs3oQU86vRkxTiQHXed+QRT7IvnstvgeSoh7sqP+t09NX+YQ18lkxe19iZP93zAxgG9zsAcKQi3HgV7FAJ2m4UuQpTo1qAxDCueTJLiM4MF9UyoJSdmVpuDjorYMrQAfUelK2r1PGt4qbVmm23BfJGXhDAwzx2B9xl8Ki9SjHl620rZ0rNwzI+CfBp8TGqOM61nDqp9xx3M5HfuoJbxpXm28z0w5sXEbapA/NcUs1qfVFnzMkJhkjsONY10zUZ3A6nJ5RyZb/DXS+STm0pljCXMW4o6BfeCLNe9XCYG3QsPdmZ2O7qfy/PuZ2TA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Jun 2021 21:14:55 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id A957ACDB7D7; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:14:53 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 17:14:53 -0400
Message-Id: <20210606211454.A957ACDB7D7@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: dean.willis@softarmor.com
Subject: Re: Postel's Principle and Layer 9 protocol engineering
In-Reply-To: <nE8J3jp6eJyTzNElmPjxf2sbHjkK4C5vC7kUfVvVOdGTBKcSBbvwFnmxrnZBm2q1mhD1BH-p567n_svVXqCSUh12EaXIxcA1apU4GAsSD00=@softarmor.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vRbA98NndecLuqdOKFYL-mBZlZw>
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: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 21:15:03 -0000

It appears that Dean Willis  <dean.willis@softarmor.com> said:
>Larry, they didn't "delay my posting for a reasonable length of time. " They permanently blocked my comment, denied the appeal, and banned me from
>using Facebook for any purpose for 24 hours. As I understand it, they use an escalating scale, so the next time they make this mistake it's a week
>ban, then two, then a month...

Facebook like every large social media platform uses automated
filtering software, backed up by farms of poorly paid moderators most of
whom are not in the U.S.  I hear that Twitter gets 6000 posts per second,
and Facebook is a lot bigger.

I don't see that they have made a mistake. While I don't claim to be a
great fan of Facebook, blocking messages that could be interpreted as
death threats isn't surprising, and it is also unsurprising that
neither their software nor their offshore moderators recognized your
reference. I expect that some of the people who might have seen it
wouldn't have recognized it either. They blocked you for 24 hours, and
now you have a day to decide whether you want to play by their rules.
Sometimes when you use a free service, you get what you pay for.
 
>Given that MY current employer (for better or worse) is an agency that literally runs on top of social media platforms, said 24 hour ban literally
>blocks my income stream and the business operations of my clients. Now, perhaps that's my problem and I have a business Facebook dependency to
>resolve, which I will do...

To put it mildly, that is Not Their Problem.  If I were in your situation I would decide whether I wanted
to figure out how to maintain my FB access or else perhaps look for a job that was less aggravating.

R's,
John

PS: I tried to log into my FB account earlier today for the first time in over a month, and no matter what browser
I use, I don't get past the page that tells me that I have to log in.  i presume it's tripping over some of the
anti-adware configuration in my network, but after some thought I have concluded that is a feature, not a bug.