Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> grenville armitage writes:
>
>
> > - protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record (archives
> > that soak up all posts to the WG's mailing list)
>
>
> Stop blindly archiving every message, and this ceases to be a problem.

The IETF standards process requires us to archive WG mailing lists.
For good reasons: open process requires a public record, and prior art
claims can be checked.

> > - improves the 'signal to distraction' ratio of traffic on the list
> > (particularly important for list residents charged with keeping
> > things on charter and evaluating rough consensus)
>
>
> Distraction is in the eye of the beholder.  Ignoring something
> requires no action;

Not true. When one receives a few hundred emails per day, the act of
ignoring, say, 75% of them takes a significant amount of time. Even
the act of maintaining one's personal filters takes a significant
amount of time.

...
> > Yes, revocation of posting privileges and receiver-side filtering both
> > cause a drop in traffic reaching one's inbox. But that doesn't 
> > make the actions equivalent.
>
>
> Yes.  The former is censorship, the latter is not.

It isn't censorship. It isn't infringing anybody's free speech.
It's very specifically restricting misuse of mailing lists that
have been set up for a given purpose. That is well within bounds
for a community such as ours.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf