Re: Censoring (RE: Using IPv8 Addressing with IPv6)

[Nic Gandin <nic at itron-ca.com>]

At 10:48 AM 7/20/98 -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>Harald.Alvestrand at maxware.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) writes:
>
>> Note that my experiment with a censoring sublist,
>>	ietf+censored at alvestrand.no,
>> has not been bothered much by the domainname debates, since it filters all
>> messages that are CCed to the domain-policy list.
>
>And this works so well that I've occasionally wondered just what it was
>that other people were arguing about -- Harald's censored sublist only
>has a few messages a day, and none of them are about DNS politics.
>-- 
>Paul Vixie
>La Honda, CA			"Many NANOG members have been around
><paul at vix.com>			 longer than most." --Jim Fleming
>pacbell!vixie!paul		 (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
>

  I disagree.

|Teddy A. Purwadi" <sekjen at apjii.or.id> wrote
|Sender: owner-ietf+censored at dokka.maxware.no
|X-Filter-Ruleset: ietf+censored 4
|
| Test, Please ignored. Sorry
| Grha Citra Caraka, TELKOM Bld, Mezzanine Floor
|
|Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.

   Harald is not doing a live intelligent censorship
   as I would have expected, based on the last line
   above. His X-Filter-Ruleset setup allows  too
   much noise to pass thru. Just filtering out some
   well-known offenders will spare a lot of bandwidth.

   I can understand the desire to set a conservative
   filter. No one wants  to make enemies by filtering
   people away. 

   So why not to give the power to the people: and
   give us an option to set a filtering level of the
   censored list, say :

      1 - obviously conservative filtering, 
       ...
     10 - filter away everyone but oneself 
         (Wouldn't it be a very popular one ;-)

   Easy to do: 10 lists with 10 filters for instance.
   I would gladly rely on the censor's decisions in
   filter setup. It is much more productive then
   setting individual kill files on top of every
   single mailing list we subscribe to.

   Ideally I would like to see something more advanced,
   like collaborative rating based messaging environment.
   When everyone is rated and raters opinions are
   weighted against their ratings. Then I will be able
   to afford to subscribe to another 50 lists, without
   being overwhelmed by garbage sneaking thru my and
   other people filters.

   Isn't it pathetic that ietf cannot organize even
   its own discussion list for so long? 

   Just an opinion.

   nick gandin   Saratoga, CA