Looking at our statement at
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
It includes the following:
1) It is assumed that messages submitted to a mailing list are
categorized by a software filter into two categories: submissions
from subscribers or other known email addresses and submissions from
non-subscribers. Submissions from subscribers or other known email
addresses are distributed immediately. Other submissions must then
be made available to a human reviewer for further consideration.
2) WG Chairs (and/or some other designated WG member(s)) must
review the list of held messages on a regular basis and have the
opportunity to approve the distribution of non-spam submissions to
the mailing list. Review of such messages should normally take place
in a timely matter (i.e., within one business day).
Note, from the above, it would appear that is not acceptable to send
spam to the bit bucket without having a human check first. This seems
problematical.
I.e., all mail fed into namedroppers (and who knows how many other
mailing lists) is run through spamassassin. This is the case for all
mail sent to mailing lists on the server, not just the one mailing
list. rejected mail is not archived or scanned by a human.
Is this reasonable? It would appear to be inconsistent with our
statement.
My take is that the statement may need revising. There has definitely
been some community support for the notion that requiring the
archiving of spam is not acceptable. Should all lists be required to
look through all rejected "spam" postings? How do we resolve this?
Thomas