Re: Proposed message to IPR list about Todd Glassey (fwd)

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <453500000.1055918384@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>, Harald Tveit Al
vestrand writes:
>Thomas,
>
>if we follow this, it is going to result in me writing a draft called 
>"following the rules in 2418 to the letter", and detailing the whole raft 
>of who-sends-what. And then asking the community if that's an appropriate 
>level of mailing list moderation for the IETF.
>
>That's probably an useful thing to do anyway.
>
>I *know* we'll have knee-jerk reactions against removing Todd on the 
>mailing list. And then howls of outrage against the knee-jerk reactions 
>being ignored when we finally do the dirty deed. And then outrage against 
>the outragers for not seeing that it's obvious that he's disruptive and 
>should be sanctioned.
>
>The difference between doing this in yet-another-warning and doing it in 
>removing him is that the mailing list will include Todd's howls of outrage.
>
>[OK, I'm probably exaggerating. Each of the howls will probably be 2 
>messages long.]
>
>Michael Froomkin is right that the first sanction against a yahoo always 
>generates more traffic than the yahoo did. Where he's wrong is that we need 
>to act against the first yahoo in order to control traffic from the second, 
>third and sixty-fourth.
>
>Sigh. I'll send the warning.


And send it now, before his next braindump.  He's had five warnings 
already; we don't have to wait for another incident before sending the 
sixth warning.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)