Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata

Carsten Bormann <> Mon, 29 May 2023 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B915C151094 for <>; Sun, 28 May 2023 23:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQ4HfZeosLlf for <>; Sun, 28 May 2023 23:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A857C151076 for <>; Sun, 28 May 2023 23:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QV57B6tjhzDCck; Mon, 29 May 2023 08:23:02 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <20230528172358.B9953DF9249C@ary.qy>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 08:22:52 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <20230528172358.B9953DF9249C@ary.qy>
To: tools-discuss <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 06:23:15 -0000

On 28. May 2023, at 19:23, John Levine <> wrote:
>> I see that you now need to solve a captcha to submit errata, as well as
>> type in your name and email. This seems like unnecessary friction.
> We're still getting a lot of junk errata.

Let’s face it: We’ll have to moderate errata reports.
(A human looks at them before they are sent on to a gazillion people who all have to discard them as garbage.)

The moderator will only discard garbage reports, but I think that is the specific problem we need to solve.
The reports that are wrong, misguided, not understanding the purpose of errata, etc., still will be accepted, I think.

Can we do this and keep the threshold for submitting errata low otherwise?
(And can we agree to work on reducing the incentive to create datatracker accounts that will then be used for other spam?)

Grüße, Carsten