On 2008-04-15 05:12 Ned Freed said the following:
>> On 2008-04-15 00:35 Ned Freed said the following:
>>>> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
>
>>> I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed
>>> bypass
>>> of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist.
>
>> So it seems to me that you've failed to see the problem.
>
>> Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
>> bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering.
>
> I see nothing in the requirements that says this supposed to be possible as a
> unilateral action on the part of the poster. That's clearly preposterous - it
> should go without saying that whitelisting arrangements are just that:
> Arrangements. The requirements leave open how such arrangements are made; IMO
> that's entirely appropriate.
>
>> This would also
>> include a spammer who considers himself a valid poster. At the same time,
>> the IETF lists MUST provide spam control. I see this as a contradiction in
>> the announced text.
>
> Only if you engage in a VERY creative reading of what's there.
As has been painfully clear for some email round-trips, we obviously don't
agree.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
