![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lloyd, Just to be clear: > > If you object to how the midcom elist is operating you need to take that > > up with the midcom-admin and the relevant AD. > done. on cc. On open IETF lists, I have the right to post what you > deem to be rubbish, and you have the right to choose to ignore me (and > the satisfaction of doing so). midcom's policy limits those rights a > priori without consensus or even persistent complaints from list > members. Are you asserting that you (and anyone else for that matter) have the right to spam an IETF mailing list and that filtering/moderating such messages is inappropriate? I would be surprised if there is widespread support for such a view. What complicates the overall issue is that in all the cases I'm aware of where "moderating" goes on, it is to reduce spam. I suspect few people would argue that spam filtering is an unacceptable "censorship" in practice. However, because spam filters can make mistakes, it is highly desirable (as a sanity check/second opinion) for a human to double check automatic rejections. Unfortunately, having a human look at a message and decide whether to forward it on will always be viewed as moderation/censorship by some regardless of the reasons for doing so. Consider the two extremes: automatic spam filters in which no human has chance to overrule an automatic rejection, and completely open mailing lists with no anti-spam filters. Neither of these seems to be desired in the majority of cases, and any in-betweens would appear to require some level of human "moderation". Thomas
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.