Proposed Change to ITU-SG16 Mail List Procedures

Simao Campos-Neto simao.campos at LABS.COMSAT.COM
Wed Sep 26 08:42:51 EDT 2001


Dear colleagues,

I sympathise with Greg, and agree that measures should be taken to control
SPAM.

We have heard of three options,
a) block sending messages at the server level (rob.c, sorry, don't know
your real name)
b) require subscription to the list for acceptance of message posting
(M.Euchner)
c) two-step submission process (G.Meyer)

I would request that a) not be implemented. I have been in a situation
before that I did not have access to a "clean" SMTP server and used one of
the servers that spammers also use ... actually, the legitimate use of the
open-door policy prevalent in the beginning of the Internet. This scenario
happens quite frequently, so it is an option which I would favor to leave
open. On a more general respect, control of spam will be good only as long
as the ban list is maintained -- we will still get spam messages in the
wake of new spam smtp servers before they are added to the ban lists.

Option b) was the "obvious" solution that first came to my mind (I manage a
few lists in this fashion), but has the drawback that Mr.Okubo mentioned
(that many colleagues from Japan would have to resubscribe), and also that
if you post a message from a machine with a declared email address that is
different from the one you are subscribed to, the posting will be rejected
even though you are subscribed with a different email address (there are
ways around it, but it is always a hassle). Of course, the other
disadvantage is that someone will have to perform as a list subscription
moderator (which could be anyone, not necessarily someone from Intel, I
presume).

Option c) has the disadvantage of being a two-step process, but it sounds
quite ingenious. As mentioned by Mr.Okubo, provided that the response time
between the "proposed posting" and receipt of the confirmation message is
short (say within a few minutes under normal operating conditions), then I
think it is a good compromise solution. Even more so if the confirmation
process involves only hitting the reply button. Finally, option c) is way
more user-friendly than working around posting from different email
addresses in b), or not being able to post messages at all in a).

So, I support that we give Greg's proposal a try.

Best regards,
Simão
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: simao.campos.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 324 bytes
Desc: Card for Simao Campos-Neto
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20010926/6bc4aa58/attachment-0006.vcf>


More information about the sg16-avd mailing list