[rfc-i] Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun Sep 18 14:08:29 PDT 2011


On Sep 18, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> Having spent most of my work time in the middle of the email anti-abuse community for most of the last decade, I'll note that your particular labels of this activity, here, is your particular classification.
> 
> Although the industry has quite a bit of variance, I've never seen any credible definitions that quite match yours.  The usual concern is for unsolicited /bulk/ mail, rather than the assignment of a 'role' address to facilitate direct work initiated by the addressee.

You're creating an alias to my email address and having it track me. That is enabling spam.

Oh, if you don't think so, then you should start with a few other "fixes" to make it easier for the community dialogue (the IETF's goal, as you note):

	- make the list of subscribers to all IETF email lists public
	- make the archives show posters email addresses explicitly
		isn't the "joe at example.net" with a link to "joe at domain.hidden"
		working against community dialogue?

>> If the author is offered an ietf alias as a service, that's fine.
>> 
>> If the author is placed on a (1-person) email list without their consent,
> 
> Basically, you have the most restrictive view of the social contract for participation in the IETF that I've seen in quite awhile.

The IETF already goes to lengths to protect user email addresses from spam as above. Setting up tracking accounts that get around all that is a bad idea.

> For reference, my own view is that the social contract should be to make it a condition of document submission that one is willing to be contacted about the document and that includes through role-based addresses affiliated with the document, rather than requiring respondents to guess or track down the correct address.

The author provides contact info in the doc. The author can use either a specific email or a persistent email address as they chose at that time.

Setting up a "service" to get around the explicit indication of the author is a violation of the social contract that you've already established. 

You asked for contact info and it was provided. THAT is the social contract. Period. Stop trying to revise it post-facto (esp. for already published RFCs).

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list