Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 5/4/2010 9:30 PM, Joe Baptista wrote:
> Has anyone bother by Dean considered using filters as a means of dealing
> with this?

The problem with Filters is that you miss communications as part of the
vetting process, so you are not properly informed. From a professional
standards practice this is a serious issue.

What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the
history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random
and uncontrolled censorship.

Todd
> 
> Joe
> 
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, todd glassey <tglassey <at> earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>>>> Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
>>>> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
>>>> compliant.
>>>
>>> I direct your attention to the IETF's standard for unilateral list
>>> unsubscription, RFC 5228 as extended by RFC 5429.
>>
>> Arnt
>> These are extensions for Sendmail. The problem is that Dean created a
>> list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it.  The members
>> have NO passwords and cant get them without interacting with Dean making
>> this harassment.
>>
>> As to whether the IETF postings are commercial or not they clearly are
>> since they are work on standards for commercial networking.
>>
>> Todd
>>>
>>> Dean subscribed me too, but I had forgotten about it until just now.
>>>
>>> Arnt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf <at> ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf <at> ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

On 5/5/2010 8:05 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>> These are extensions for Sendmail.
> 
> No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others.
> 
>> The problem is that Dean created a
>> list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it.
> 
> Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to reject the mail. The list
> software will eventually see that mail to you is persistently
> undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.

This alters the email stream meaning its use as evidence is made
non-functional.

> 
>> The members
>> have NO passwords and cant get them without interacting with Dean making
>> this harassment.
> 
> You don't need the password to unsubscribe. Just let the mail bounce,
> and have a nice day.

Then I have filters in place which edit my reception of list business
and prevent or alter my participation. It also means I may miss critical
information someone else responds to and that is unacceptable.

Sorry, but this needs to get resolved, either in the IETF itself or in
court.

Todd Glassey
> 
> Arnt
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

--On Wednesday, May 05, 2010 17:05 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt <at> gulbrandsen.priv.no> wrote:

> Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to reject the mail.
> The list software will eventually see that mail to you is
> persistently undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.

Arnt,

However appropriate it may be in this case, I have to object to
that particular advice.  More conventional spammers (the
unsolicited, unambiguously-commercial, email variety) turn it
around to say "you can apply filters and therefore we are
causing no harm".    Setting up the filters (sieve script or
otherwise) has a cost, having the hardware and bandwidth needed
to receive (at least to the filtering point), analyze, and
reject the mail has a cost, and so on.   

Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous
and abusive at best and should not be encouraged in any way,
especially by telling the recipients that they can always filter.

    john