Subject: Ftp-WG: Moderation?

From: "Joris Dobbelsteen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:13:35 -0500

I think the list owner should look at this spam and deny access for posting to all the spam senders... The last week I received about 20 mails, where ONLY ONE (1) was useful: "Ftp:WG- Moderation?" (see below).

- Joris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ftp-wg-owner [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf 
> Of Stephen
> Tihor
> Sent: Sunday, 01 October 2000 0:25
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Ftp-WG: Moderation?
> 
> 
> Since the spammers are showing no moderation might this group 
> add some.
> Something like a one post approval requirement would avoid a 
> lot of problems.
> 
>

---

From: Paul Hethmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:48:37 -0500

I will try to add some code to the mailing list software to require approval
for anyone posting who is not on the subscriber list. Per IETF guidelines, this
list has to be open for anyone to post to.

Paul

---

From: "Brad Clements" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:53:59 -0500

On 5 Oct 2000, at 15:48, Paul Hethmon wrote:

> I will try to add some code to the mailing list software to require
> approval for anyone posting who is not on the subscriber list. Per IETF
> guidelines, this list has to be open for anyone to post to.
> 
> Paul

I think in this day and age where we've received more spam than 
substance on this list, it would be acceptable to auto-reply to non-
subscribed members and tell them to subscribe first, then post.

I'm sure the IETF won't mind that.

Brad Clements,                [email-masked]   (315)268-1000
http://www.murkworks.com                          (315)268-9812 Fax
netmeeting: ils://ils.murkworks.com               AOL-IM: BKClements

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:48:43 -0500

> guidelines, this list has to be open for anyone to post to.

Surely the right thing to do, given that there's essentially no on-topic
discussion on this list any more, is to get the drafts finished and
promoted to RFCs and then close down this working group rather than trying
to patch the mailing list software?  Once the list has been closed down,
obviously no one will get spam through it.

Is there any major unfinished business?  My very strong impression is that
this working group has reached the exhausted, "let's just finish" stage
that marks the end of the life cycle of an IETF working group.  If there
are additional FTP issues that people would like to work on, it's always
possible to start a new working group focused on those issues.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Gregory A Lundberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:17:58 -0500

> possible to start a new working group focused on those issues.

It sounds like you're saying that, once the issues you're personally
interested in are done, there's no reason for the working group any more.
My feeling is the FTP specification needs a lot more work, but that the
current issues are what should be concentrated on first.

MLST is nearing completion.  At one time HOST was a part of MLST, but was
removed.  I've started work on a HOST draft, but it will be some time (a few
weeks) until it's ready for draft-00 publication.

Personally, I think the time has come for a supercedes-959 RFC.  Once both
MLST and HOST are published, and assuming FTP-SSL is published, and further
rolling in the pertinent changes from FTP-PLUS one would need to comprehend
and work out the inconsistencies between some TWELVE (12) RFCs.  To my mind,
that's far too many and it's time to completely restate the FTP, bringing
all these issues into a single document.  In addition, over the years, I've
come across a number of small issues in 959 (et al) which should be
clarified (both internal inconsistencies and things assumed and unstated).

As for moderation of the WG mailing list: why bother?  The spam level is
running only one or two messages a day.  At that low level, ISTM it's more
work to talk about fixing a non-problem than it is to simply ignore it.  If
the spam picks up to something like, say, a half-dozen a day, THEN would be
the time to fix a problem.  As it is, I barely notice the spam through the
WG mailing list (in fact, the only reason I do notice it is that the WG mail
has its own inbox in my mail system).  If a change must be made, the best
suggestion I've seen is to require the body To:/Cc: header to include the
mailing list address; I cannot see why someone would want to Bcc: the WG
mailing list and it would stop most (all?) of the spam through the list.

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:59:45 -0500

> interested in are done, there's no reason for the working group any

No, I'm really not saying that.

I'm saying that I see an on-topic message from this mailing list maybe
once a month, all of the deadlines for this working group have, I believe,
passed, and that in my experience with IETF working groups that means it's
time to publish the draft, close the working group, and start new working
groups on the topics that people think are still outstanding to get some
fresh blood and fresh enthusiasm.

It's just my opinion; others may well disagree.

> Personally, I think the time has come for a supercedes-959 RFC.  Once
> both MLST and HOST are published, and assuming FTP-SSL is published, and
> further rolling in the pertinent changes from FTP-PLUS one would need to
> comprehend and work out the inconsistencies between some TWELVE (12)
> RFCs.  To my mind, that's far too many and it's time to completely
> restate the FTP, bringing all these issues into a single document.  In
> addition, over the years, I've come across a number of small issues in
> 959 (et al) which should be clarified (both internal inconsistencies and
> things assumed and unstated).

I agree; I think that would be great.  But I think one should consider
calling that a new working group, writing a charter specifically for that,
etc.  I could be completely out to lunch here, of course.

> running only one or two messages a day.

It's just that it's about 60x the on-topic traffic that I think is causing
people to notice it.

---

From: "Brad Clements" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:55:15 -0500

> Personally, I think the time has come for a supercedes-959 RFC.  Once both

I agree with this.

> work to talk about fixing a non-problem than it is to simply ignore it.  If

I disagree with this.

To me, its not the total amount of spam, is the ratio of spam to 
substance. So far its lots more spam than substance. Just require 
posters to be subscribed, that should be easy enough, any mailing list 
software can do it.