Re: Dan Bernstein's issues about namedroppers list operation

[James M Galvin <galvin@elistx.com>]

Thanks for the reply.  Just a few comments.  No need to reply unless you
want to clarify something.


On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Thomas Narten wrote:

    >     Furthermore, given that most of these missing messages were cc'ed to
    >     other lists (i.e., the ietf and iesg lists), there is no evidence of
    >     censorship.

    > It should be the case that the merits of a claim of censorship are
    > judged in the context of the mailing list at issue, not in the joining
    > of the contexts of the "ietf", "iesg", or other mailing lists with the
    > mailing list at issue.

    Censorship is a loaded term but has a clear component. In particular,
    it includes intentional removal of content in order to have its
    publication be surpressed. Emphasis on intentional. I simply do not
    see evidence of this based on what I understand of the situation.

    My point about the cc'ing the other lists is that if censorship is the
    intent, it's a pretty ineffective attempt if those same messages are
    going to a rather public list (e.g., ietf). Thus, I just can't see
    this as compelling evidence of intent.

Yes but this misses a key point.  The messages may not be "censored"
in-the-large but they could very well be "censored" in-the-small.  My
point is the fact that the messages were distributed elsewhere *by the
originator* is not particularly relevant.  The relevant point is the
actions at the point of distribution.

    It would certainly not be acceptable to supress mail on one list just
    because it appeared on another list. I did not intent my wording to
    suggest that.

We are in agreement on the principle.  My point is just that your
message did not read that way to me.

    > The fact that spamassassin is applied at the point of SMTP submission to
    > the server may be the basis for an exception from the point of view of
    > the IESG but it is wrong to represent it as otherwise.

    Point taken. I don't think this exact point was discussed at the time
    the policy was put together. But to be fair, the use of spamassassin
    here is not the issue. It's the silent discarding of messages that are
    flagged as being spam. They could also be looked at by a human.

Or the originator could (and probably should) be alerted to the
decision.

    My assumption is that the approvals of the messages in question were
    fat-fingered.

It would have been good to say this, perhaps in so many words.  I do not
believe it was obvious in your message.

    Given that I have seen nothing that suggests a desire
    or intent to censor anyone on the list, I chose not to read an such
    intent in the cases at issue here. But of course, there is no way to
    prove one way or the other.

Agreed.

Thanks,

Jim