4th RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting moderated
adam brower
moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Blocklist issues. (Moderated)
CHANGES from previous RFD:
- Refresher RFD
RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
The increasing use and popularity of methods to propagate and query a
list of data in an attempt to reduce network abuse has given rise to the
need for a group specifically devoted to the discussion of their use and
administration. These methods include dns-based blocklists (DNSBL),
right-hand side blocklists (RHSBL,) among others.
Historically, blocklists have long been used by local administrators to
regularize the habits of not only their local users, but the outside world,
at their local hosts and networks. Recently, the use of centrally
controlled lists has gained a measure of acceptance, notably in their use
to reduce unsolicited bulk email, commonly known as "spam." This practice
of blocking traffic from insecure sites, sites believed to have bad
policies in place, or sites hosting known abusers has grown in favor.
This conclusion follows not only from the large number of distributed or
queryable lists in use today, but from the ways in which they are used.
Blocklists are no longer used only to prevent spam.
Current forums in which discussions of these topics are held attract many
contributors whose strong dislike of network abuse and its perpetrators
results in the drowning out of more quietly-stated views with which they
may be in disagreement. As a result, new readers of these groups are often
faced with a bewildering cacophony of advice, ill-conceived technical
information, and outright flames. Far from contributing to the reduction
of abuse, this actually contribute to its perpetuation by driving away the
very participants who have entered the group for assistance. In
particular, news.admin.net-abuse.email has been overwhelmed by the volume
of discussion of blocklist-related topics. It is hoped that the new group
will serve as a more focussed forum for these discussions, thereby
returning n.a.n-a.e to the purpose stated in its charter as "a forum for
discussion of possible abuses of e-mail."
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting will exist as an alternative forum where
interested parties may exchange views and information in a civil
manner. It is anticipated that not only administrators with comments,
questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but also those
affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are listed in
blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum useful, and that
the discussions in the group will yield benefits not only to
administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their addresses
listed, but to the internet community itself, by focussing attention
solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational, informed discussion
of those issues, and in the end contributing to the reduction of network
abuse.
CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is a newsgroup devoted to discussion
of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects of
blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited bulk email and
other unwanted or abusive network traffic. Any topic which is especially
of interest to those maintaining, using, or affected by blocklists
is welcome in this group.
The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and frustration
are expected, but vulgarity, ad hominem attacks, unwarranted generalisations
and non-productive displays of pique (however elegantly worded,) will be
rejected at the discretion of the moderators. Rejected articles will be
returned to the author. Where practicable, the moderator may include advice
on how to revise the article to better meet the criteria for acceptance.
In general, the moderators will not reject articles based on content, but
only on tone and language. However, some content may be deemed unsuitable.
Examples of content-related criteria for rejection may include ad hominem
attacks, repetitive expositions of largely identical arguments, and non-
informative expressions of opinion on the viability of one or another
list, method, provider, or listed entity. The focus will be on
information.
Although discussions in the group may focus on one or another listing in a
specific blocklist, the advice and opinions expressed in the group should
not be taken as authoritative for any listing or list. Maintainers of
various lists use their own various criteria, and may or may not be
influenced by postings in the group, however well-informed or accurate.
All messages removed by unauthorized cancels will be automatically reposted
by Dave the Resurrector or a similar program, or at the discretion of a group
moderator. Spams, gateway spews, and other attacks on the system itself will
be removed as appropriate, following standard Usenet guidelines.
Binary files will not be approved for posting in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
The following are sample topics which will be addressed in
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting:
Blocklist creation and maintenance
Nomination and delisting procedures
Criteria used in listings
Pros and cons of DNSBL usage
Reduction of "false positives"
Discussions of blocklist listings
Effects of blocklist use on spam volume
Other technologies for propagation and querying of a list
New uses for blocklists
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting is not
allowed; exceptions may be made at the discretion of the moderators,
as for example in the case of FAQ's.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
Moderators:
Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@hanov3r.com>
Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
Moderator: Gary Callison <hu...@interaccess.com>
Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will be supplied by Scott
Hazen Mueller. Where practicable, the following procedures will be
followed by the moderation team:
- The moderators will maintain the tone of discourse so as to minimize the
heated discussions to which the subject often leads.
- Although moderators themselves may have strong opinions on the efficacy,
application, or side-effects of one or another blocklist or other method
of reducing spam, they are expected to refrain from allowing such
opinions to influence their approval or rejection of articles.
- The moderators may use the tools provided (now or in the future) to aid
in moderation of the group. These may include "white lists," "black
lists," keywording of headers, and word-filtering.
- Moderators will be added to or removed from the team by a 2/3 majority
vote. In the case of a vote for removal, the moderator under review will
not be permitted to vote.
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup should be
raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of
21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to
news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted
by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not
attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to
Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents
(available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the
process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
news.admin.net-abuse.email
Proponent: adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
Proponent: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
george
"adam brower" <ad...@hermes-grp.com> wrote in message
news:10509425...@isc.org...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Procedural details are below.
>
Can we have a call for votes already? This should have been created a year
ago.
CJ Llewellyn
-snip-
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Procedural details are below.
You not got this group created yet?
adam brower
well, uhhhh...
i returned the questionnaire too close
to the deadline to get a vote volunteer
assigned, hence this "refresher" rfd.
my thanks to bill aten and everyone...
/me promises to pay attention this time
adam
--
Gary S. Callison
: CJ Llewellyn wrote:
: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:29:59 +0000, adam brower wrote:
: > > moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
: > > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
: > > world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
: > > This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
: > > Procedural details are below.
: > You not got this group created yet?
: well, uhhhh...
: i returned the questionnaire too close
: to the deadline to get a vote volunteer
: assigned, hence this "refresher" rfd.
So, the questionnaire is done then?
: /me promises to pay attention this time
Yeah, pull the other one, it has bells on.
--
Huey
Tom Betz
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
So let's have a vote, already!
I'd say this is long overdue, and I can't see any problems with the RFD.
adam brower
>
> adam brower (ad...@faceville.com) wrote:
> : CJ Llewellyn wrote:
> : > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:29:59 +0000, adam brower wrote:
> : > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> : > > moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
> : > > This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> : > > world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
> : > > This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> : > > Procedural details are below.
> : > You not got this group created yet?
> : well, uhhhh...
> : i returned the questionnaire too close
> : to the deadline to get a vote volunteer
> : assigned, hence this "refresher" rfd.
>
> So, the questionnaire is done then?
>
oh ye of little faith.
> : /me promises to pay attention this time
>
> Yeah, pull the other one, it has bells on.
>
bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
his very genteel way) personally, so
there is little you can add to my
chastisement. however, as always,
the line forms on the right.
adam
--
ba...@dmcom.net
A 10 day waiting period is requred. I do suspect the PQ has or soon
will be submitted. The vote should start soon, less then 2 weeks I
would guess.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Morely 'Is it Friday yet?' Dotes
@faceville.com:
> bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
> his very genteel way) personally, so
> there is little you can add to my
> chastisement. however, as always,
> the line forms on the right.
If it's the extreme right, I guess Wm. James is at the head, although
Clifto has th uniform for it. Personally, I don't have time to bitch-slap
you personally, thweetcheekth, so guess I'll have to do it by proxy.[1]
Any volunteers?
[1] - No, Lamie, this does not mean what you think it means.
--
Want a custom-built PC designed by gamers, for gamers?
Visit http://kryptonite.pc-gamereview.com
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Kathy Morgan
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
Thanks for posting this. I'm looking forward to using the group and
will be watching for the CFV in 10 days. :-)
--
Kathy
visit news:news.groups.reviews to read reviews of other newsgroups
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
adam brower
>
> adam brower <ad...@faceville.com> wrote in news:3EA46175.F0526DA8
> @faceville.com:
>
> > bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
> > his very genteel way) personally, so
> > there is little you can add to my
> > chastisement. however, as always,
> > the line forms on the right.
>
> If it's the extreme right, I guess Wm. James is at the head,
no, wm is *in* the head...
adam
--
Gary S. Callison
: Morely 'Is it Friday yet?' Dotes wrote:
: > adam brower <ad...@faceville.com> wrote:
: > > bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
: > > his very genteel way) personally, so
: > > there is little you can add to my
: > > chastisement. however, as always,
: > > the line forms on the right.
: > If it's the extreme right, I guess Wm. James is at the head,
: no, wm is *in* the head...
Pshaw. Wm James is most assuredly not right in the head.
--
Huey
Larry M. Smith
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
(snipage)
>
> Moderators:
>
> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@hanov3r.com>
> Moderator: Jim Seymour <2...@cluestick.org>
> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
> Moderator: Gary Callison <hu...@interaccess.com>
>
Just an observation:
Am I the only one to notice that only two of the above nine domains have
web servers with any sort of real content?...
Hummm... I wonder what the moderators (myself included) really use their
vanity domains for... <voice="church lady"> Could it be EMAIL!!! <voice>
(more snipage)
>
> Proponent: adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
> Proponent: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
Ahhh... There's the content!
SgtChains
R. Asby Dragon
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting.
> This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
> Procedural details are below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting Blocklist issues. (Moderated)
YEA and VERILY ..
Looks very good from my POV; but I've never 'started' a new newsgroup
adam brower & Jim Seymour :
Thank you very much for all the effort; keep all of us posted as to progress.
Is there any chance for any of us "hoi polloie" to vote ?
Geez-- if SPEWS et al can get on the bandwagon; NANAE will be readable again!
John David Galt
time ago. Bring on the CFV!
Murray Watson
0000, adam brower says...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
Looks good to me. To all those who put their fingers (tanf) in it,
thanks for the effort.
--
The Australian Federal Government is considering outlawing
spam, declaring that the practice of sending unsolicited bulk
emails has mutated from nuisance to "menace"
Cosima Marriner - April 16 2003
Wm James
wrote:
>The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and frustration
>are expected, but vulgarity, ad hominem attacks, unwarranted generalisations
>and non-productive displays of pique (however elegantly worded,) will be
>rejected at the discretion of the moderators.
Well, if you're gonna take the fun out of it... I guess references to
Hitler are out too? What about "Rot in SPEWS"? You can't have a
blocklisting newsgroup without that! It's inhuman! :)
Wiulliam R. James
Wm James
<Morel...@spamblocked.com> wrote:
>adam brower <ad...@faceville.com> wrote in news:3EA46175.F0526DA8
>@faceville.com:
>
>> bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
>> his very genteel way) personally, so
>> there is little you can add to my
>> chastisement. however, as always,
>> the line forms on the right.
>
>If it's the extreme right, I guess Wm. James is at the head, although
>Clifto has th uniform for it. Personally, I don't have time to bitch-slap
>you personally, thweetcheekth, so guess I'll have to do it by proxy.[1]
Nah. Being atheist, I'm disqualified. Rush Limbaugh took away my
decoder ring. :)
>Any volunteers?
>
>
>[1] - No, Lamie, this does not mean what you think it means.
Oh, now that would be entertaining! Not productive, but definately
entertaining.
William R. James
Wm James
Now how did you know my septic tank line has roots?
William R. James
Kathy Morgan
> Thank you very much for all the effort; keep all of us posted as to
> progress. Is there any chance for any of us "hoi polloie" to vote ?
Watch for the CFV, which will be posted to the same groups which
received the RFD, and follow the instructions for voting in the CFV.
Anyone who wishes to use the group as proposed should vote YES. Those
who have followed the discussion and have no objections should either
not vote or vote ABSTAIN. If you feel the proposed group would be
harmful or has serious technical problems, you probably should vote NO.
You must use a valid, replyable address to cast your vote, and the
RESULTS posting will include the names and addresses of those who voted.
Ernest Cline
news.groups a haunt of mine) but I have a question that the charter does not
does not answer for me. What exactly is blocklisting? I infer that it deals
with blocks of addresses, but it does not make that clear, nor does it make
it clear if it is to be used only for blacklisting (which is the only
application I see mentioned) or if other applications such as whitelisting
are part of the intended field of inquiry for this proposed group. Without
some sort of clarification, I'm probably going to reluctantly vote NO when
the CFV comes up. I suspect the lact of sufficient explanation is due to the
fact that unlike with groups outside the news.* heirarchy where the people
who review the proposal are often not familiar with the terminology and thus
spot inadequate descriptions that need to be expanded, most people
interested in the news.* heirarchy are familiar enough with the terms used
that such omissions escape notice. Is it too late to address these concerns
and issue a 5th RFD without unduly delaying the process?
--
Ernest Cline
To mail me, pretend that Karl Marx was a capitalist.
ba...@dmcom.net
Is it too late to address these concerns
> and issue a 5th RFD without unduly delaying the process?
In one sense a 5th RFD can be issued should the proponent so decide.
Another RFD will delay the CFV as there is a 10 day waiting period from
when the revised RFD is posted. It is posible that minor changes
(determined by vote taker and/or n.a.n moderator(s) ) can be made in the
CFV resulting in no delay. As to if the proponents desires to make any
changes I leave for them to reply to.
Gary S. Callison
sense to me)
Ernest Cline (ernes...@mindspring.communism) wrote:
First,
: Is it too late to address these concerns and issue a 5th RFD without
: unduly delaying the process?
Lord God, help me.
This RFD has been kicked around for around nine months at this point.
In the discussions that have followed each iteration of the RFD, Many
good points have been raised, and those have been incorporated into
subsequent versions. At this point, _any_ further delay is 'unduly'. So
I'm going to have to go with 'no' on this one.
: I hadn't seen the earlier 3 RFD's (its been a while since I last made
: news.groups a haunt of mine) but I have a question that the charter
: does not does not answer for me. What exactly is blocklisting? I infer
: that it deals with blocks of addresses, but it does not make that
: clear, nor does it make it clear if it is to be used only for
: blacklisting (which is the only application I see mentioned) or if
: other applications such as whitelisting are part of the intended field
: of inquiry for this proposed group. Without some sort of clarification,
: I'm probably going to reluctantly vote NO when the CFV comes up.
If you don't understand the purpose of the group after reading Google's
archived comments on previous RFDs, then you are obviously not part of the
target audience of the group - in which case, I would question why exactly
you would feel it necessary to vote 'no' on a group that you probably
wouldn't be a part of to begin with.
But hopefully, I can provide some of that clarification for you now.
I'll start at the beginning.
Spam is out of control. No provider of any significance (and very few
insignificant ones) do nothing about it - most use private or third-party
blocklists, tagging, or filtering mechanisms, and many of those more than
one. While the word 'blocklist' conjures up images of a simple list of
domain names, email addresses, or (most often) IP addresses for which the
domains that use it to block email: drop, bounce, or deny, or fail to
route altogether on port 25 - or in some cases from any IP connectivity
at all; in many cases (6 of the 10 largest US ISPs, frinstance) it can
also mean third-party filtering mechanisms like Brightmail or Postini, or
header-tagging suspect email (RCN and ALGX), or fuzzy-hashing bulk
detection systems like DCC or Razor or SpamNet, or whitelisting systems,
a challenge-response system, any combination of the above, or the lambs,
and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast
cereals, and fruit bats, and...
SMTP was never meant to handle some of the things that are being thrown at
it now. As a consequence, lots of things are being bolted on to it, which
the world at large can think of generally (and in many cases, completely
inaccurately) as 'blocklists'. Regardless of the applicability of this
term to whatever specific functionality added to your mailserver that
causes your mail, wanted or unwanted, to get blocked, tagged, filtered,
delivered to you, automatically forwarded to a second mailbox, or
what-have-you. The internet population at large doesn't care about the
mechanisms, so long as they work. They want to get the mail they want to
get, and they don't want to get spam, and everyone who has worked in an
even remotely customer-facing position at an ISP understands how loudly
they can complain when either of those things doesn't happen. "Can't you
block this stuff?" and "Your stupid spam filter blocked my aunt Patty!"
are the tightrope that ISPs have to walk. And as spam expands, so do
antispam solutions. ...to the point where discussions of these solutions
now dominate news.admin.net-abuse.email to the detriment of the
original charter of THAT group, and clearly merit their own group.
: I suspect the lact of sufficient explanation is due to the fact that
: unlike with groups outside the news.* heirarchy where the people who
: review the proposal are often not familiar with the terminology and thus
: spot inadequate descriptions that need to be expanded, most people
: interested in the news.* heirarchy are familiar enough with the terms
: used that such omissions escape notice.
This RFD has been discussed here for quite some time, reviewed by many of
the more competent regular posters to news.admin.net-abuse.email, and
would have probably passed a vote on the ~last~ RFD if ~someone~ had just
returned the questionnaire on time (AHEM!). As to whether or not it fails
to make perfectly clear the stated goals of the group? It certainly
doesn't. I'm a tech writer by trade and a pedant by obsessive-compulsion,
and there's no such thing as a perfect document. There comes a time when
the boss says "Ship it", and you ship it. This RFD has reached that time.
This new group is sorely needed. Email gets progressively more and more
broken and balkanized every day, and the pleas to fix it only incite
flamewars in n.a.n-a.e. A forum for useful, civil discussion of these
issues would be ideal, and it is an ideal that is within reach. ...with
the _current_ RFD, and a CFV to follow extremely shortly.
If you'd like to be a part of that discussion, please vote 'yes', and join
us there after the group has been created. If you don't, please don't vote
'no' just for the sake of pissing in my Oaties, thanks.
--
Huey
George Crissman
>Historically, blocklists have long been used by local administrators to
>regularize the habits of not only their local users, but the outside world,
>at their local hosts and networks.
Regularize? Why not come right out and say "regulate" or "control"?
Other than that, it reads just fine and I'll vote "aye" when the time
is right.
George Crissman
DHS Club: The Club Built On Spam
URL: http://www.theclubbuiltonspam.com
Got News about DHS Club activities?
strads...@excite.com (Remove BIKINI to reply)
Ernest Cline
"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> (I'm mangling your post to address your points in the order that makes
> sense to me)
I appreciate the notice, altho as long as you don't mangle my meaning (which
you did not,) I don't mind.
> Ernest Cline (ernes...@mindspring.communism) wrote:
>
> First,
> : Is it too late to address these concerns and issue a 5th RFD without
> : unduly delaying the process?
>
> Lord God, help me.
>
> This RFD has been kicked around for around nine months at this point.
> In the discussions that have followed each iteration of the RFD, Many
> good points have been raised, and those have been incorporated into
> subsequent versions. At this point, _any_ further delay is 'unduly'. So
> I'm going to have to go with 'no' on this one.
>
> : I hadn't seen the earlier 3 RFD's (its been a while since I last made
> : news.groups a haunt of mine) but I have a question that the charter
> : does not does not answer for me. What exactly is blocklisting? I infer
> : that it deals with blocks of addresses, but it does not make that
> : clear, nor does it make it clear if it is to be used only for
> : blacklisting (which is the only application I see mentioned) or if
> : other applications such as whitelisting are part of the intended field
> : of inquiry for this proposed group. Without some sort of clarification,
> : I'm probably going to reluctantly vote NO when the CFV comes up.
>
> If you don't understand the purpose of the group after reading Google's
> archived comments on previous RFDs, then you are obviously not part of the
> target audience of the group - in which case, I would question why exactly
> you would feel it necessary to vote 'no' on a group that you probably
> wouldn't be a part of to begin with.
Why, for the reason I gave in my post: namely that I expect a group to be
able to explain in its *charter* what it is supposed to cover, and not
depend upon someone searching thru Google for posts that are not part of the
normative definition of what the group is supposed to be. The Big Eight
groups are intended to be accessible to everyone who is one the internet. If
only those with a specialized interest should have any say in how this
proposed group is organized, then this proposed group either belongs in some
other heirarchy or on a mailing list.
> But hopefully, I can provide some of that clarification for you now.
> I'll start at the beginning.
<snip a long explanation of blocklisting that if it were only in the charter
would alleviate my concerns. but since it isn't, it doesn't.>
> : I suspect the lact of sufficient explanation is due to the fact that
> : unlike with groups outside the news.* heirarchy where the people who
> : review the proposal are often not familiar with the terminology and thus
> : spot inadequate descriptions that need to be expanded, most people
> : interested in the news.* heirarchy are familiar enough with the terms
> : used that such omissions escape notice.
>
> This RFD has been discussed here for quite some time, reviewed by many of
> the more competent regular posters to news.admin.net-abuse.email,
I never said the people here weren't competent, merely so familiar and close
to the issue that the concerns I mentioned may not have occurred to them.
> If you'd like to be a part of that discussion, please vote 'yes', and join
> us there after the group has been created. If you don't, please don't vote
> 'no' just for the sake of pissing in my Oaties, thanks.
I rarely pay attentions to RFD's and wait for a CFV, but a group going to a
4th RFD is unusual enough that I decided to read it, and noticed what I
consider to be a flaw in the proposal. I am not one of those people who
votes NO to every proposal, nor even one who votes in may proposals, but
when I do vote NO it usually is because I am dissatisfied with the charter.
As for why I rarely read the RFD's I have other concerns that normally
occupy my time more than worrying about the administration of USENET. This
proposed group had the luck of attracting my eye at a time when a lull in my
other activities left me with free-time. If I vote NO, it will be because
the Charter is inadequate in my opinion. That is a sufficient reason for a
NO vote in my reason. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect that a
group will include a definition of the subject that it is supposed to be
about to be included in its charter.
Dick Wisan
Well, no. Sometimes you have to know what the word means before you
know whether it's something that interests you. I've heard of "spam"
(and know too well what it is), I've heard of and would be interested
in spamblocking (which is a term I'd have figured out). "Blocklisting"
sounds like enough to "blacklisting" to make me think it's something
bad, like making, selling, buying, using lists of potential spam
victims.
I may look in. If it's all too technical for me, I'll look out again.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I needed it.
>If you'd like to be a part of that discussion, please vote 'yes', and join
>us there after the group has been created. If you don't, please don't vote
>'no' just for the sake of pissing in my Oaties, thanks.
No fear, since you've explained what it's about.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <3EA47EA9...@Chickenboner.com>, on 04/21/2003
at 06:28 PM, "Larry M. Smith" <SgtC...@Chickenboner.com> said:
>Am I the only one to notice that only two of the above nine domains
>have web servers with any sort of real content?...
You may be the only one that cares. The web is not the Internet, and
there are other way's to serve content.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 04:24 PM, adam brower <ad...@faceville.com> said:
>bill aten already bitchslapped me (in
>his very genteel way) personally, so
>there is little you can add to my
>chastisement. however, as always,
>the line forms on the right.
For penance, you could cc me when you post the CFV.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Why, for the reason I gave in my post: namely that I expect a group to be
>able to explain in its *charter* what it is supposed to cover, and not
>depend upon someone searching thru Google for posts that are not part of the
>normative definition of what the group is supposed to be. The Big Eight
>groups are intended to be accessible to everyone who is one the internet. If
>only those with a specialized interest should have any say in how this
>proposed group is organized, then this proposed group either belongs in some
>other heirarchy or on a mailing list.
I'm one of the folks around here that normally picks up on this kind
of inadequacy. I missed this time, most likely for the very reason
you suggested. That does make the charter flawed. On the otherhand,
the charter did explain to me what the purpose of the group was and
the intended topic space, given that one knows what blocklisting is,
and I found it satisfactory. So is the charter flawed enough for me
to vote against it? No. The times I have voted NO based on the
charter, the charter had to be more flawed than that.
Furthermore, there's nothing that says the charter is the final
word on describing the newsgroup, its subject, and its topic space.
We have long been suggesting to proponents and readers that a
changed description or charter in an FAQ is a valid way of either
elaboration on or outright changing the charter of a newsgroup.
I see an FAQ as an alternative means of dealing with the problem
you brought to our attention: the problem is rather minor compared
to other types of charter problems, and FAQs typically address
the question regardless of whether the charter does. I don't
remember if an FAQ was already on the drawing board for this group
(some proponents or supporters start one during the RFD process),
but I can easily imagine the group needing one in short order
regardless of the charter issue you mention. That's the other
reason I won't be voting NO.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Jay T. Blocksom
<ernes...@mindspring.communism> wrote:
>
> "Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you don't understand the purpose of the group after reading Google's
> > archived comments on previous RFDs, then you are obviously not part of
> > the target audience of the group - in which case, I would question why
> > exactly you would feel it necessary to vote 'no' on a group that you
> > probably wouldn't be a part of to begin with.
>
> Why, for the reason I gave in my post: namely that I expect a group to be
> able to explain in its *charter* what it is supposed to cover, and not
> depend upon someone searching thru Google for posts that are not part of
> the normative definition of what the group is supposed to be.
Methinks you are confusing "explain what the newsgroup is supposed to be
about" with "explain what blocklisting is supposed to be about". Those are
two very different things. The charter needs only cover the first of them;
and I think it does that quite adequately -- far better than the "charters"
for many other groups, even. If you don't understand the terminology used,
it's up to you to educate yourself. It is not the purpose of a charter to
become a meta-venue for discussion of topics that should be (and presumably
will be) discussed in the NG itself.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ernest Cline
At the very least, I'd want a reference to a definition of blocklisting,
even if it were not included in the charter. If blocklisting was used only
in one way, that lack might be acceptable, as people could search for the
answer. However, for example, I just searched Google for 'blocklisting' as
someone might in hopes of finding out what it was all about, in the top 20
responses, I got 18 talking about blocklisting as it applies to financial
markets, a blog entry about someone wondering how it works, and a webpage
that contained an earlier post of mine in the discussion of this RFD. Not
very helpful at all. As my little experiment demonstrates, access to other
sources of information of what is blocklisting, is not easily gained in
large part beacuse of the other more widely used definition of the term
'blocklisting'.
Gary S. Callison
: At the very least, I'd want a reference to a definition of blocklisting,
: even if it were not included in the charter. If blocklisting was used only
: in one way, that lack might be acceptable, as people could search for the
: answer. However, for example, I just searched Google for 'blocklisting' as
: someone might in hopes of finding out what it was all about, in the top 20
: responses, I got 18 talking about blocklisting as it applies to financial
: markets, a blog entry about someone wondering how it works, and a webpage
: that contained an earlier post of mine in the discussion of this RFD. Not
: very helpful at all. As my little experiment demonstrates, access to other
: sources of information of what is blocklisting, is not easily gained in
: large part beacuse of the other more widely used definition of the term
: 'blocklisting'.
Searched the web for blocklisting +definition. Results 1 - 7 of 7
The first hit is this thread. The second hit is the PDF on Habeas's site,
"The Case for Confirmed Opt-In", which is a fine reference. I have no idea
what you searched on, but either of these hits would be a good spot to
start researching what blocklisting is.
Searched Groups for blocklisting +definition. Results 1 - 8 of about 17
The first three hits are references to different versions of this RFD.
The next four hits are posts in news.admin.net-abuse.email, which would
also be a fine starting place to find more information on the subject.
I think it's in the right heirarchy. It's news, for admins, about
net-abuse, dealing specifically with blocklisting. If you don't want news,
or are not an admin, or do not care about network abuse, or have no desire
to know anything about the issues involved with blocklisting, this is
probably not the group for you.
--
Huey
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>: At the very least, I'd want a reference to a definition of blocklisting,
>: even if it were not included in the charter. If blocklisting was used only
>: in one way, that lack might be acceptable, as people could search for the
>: answer. However, for example, I just searched Google for 'blocklisting' as
>: someone might in hopes of finding out what it was all about, in the top 20
>: responses, I got 18 talking about blocklisting as it applies to financial
>: markets, a blog entry about someone wondering how it works, and a webpage
>: that contained an earlier post of mine in the discussion of this RFD.
>Searched the web for blocklisting +definition. Results 1 - 7 of 7
[snip]
>Searched Groups for blocklisting +definition. Results 1 - 8 of about 17
[snip]
>I think it's in the right heirarchy. It's news, for admins, about
>net-abuse, dealing specifically with blocklisting. If you don't want news,
>or are not an admin, or do not care about network abuse, or have no desire
>to know anything about the issues involved with blocklisting, this is
>probably not the group for you.
His point still stands. I normally notice these things and didn't,
as I'm sure a few others here have failed to notice. The question
is whether it is a serious enough omission to warrant a NO vote.
For me, it isn't, mostly because of the context given in the
description of the topic space. Thus I think an FAQ can tidy
up what I consider a minor omission. An ill-defined topic space
description is quite a bit more serious than a term missing a
definition. So when weighed against that, i find it difficult
to vote against the proposal on this issue.
Well, an alternative question would be (and this has been asked)
whether adding one sentence defining "blocklisting" would be
considered a minor change such that it can go directly to CFV
without another RFD [has it already hit the posting queue?]?
I'd say it would require another RFD, but I also tend to be
a bit more extreme on the issue compared to those who matter.
Brian Mailman
> I think it's in the right heirarchy. It's news, for admins, ....
Is news.admin.* for admins or for administration of netnews?
B/
Joe Bernstein
wrote:
> Well, an alternative question would be (and this has been asked)
> whether adding one sentence defining "blocklisting" would be
> considered a minor change such that it can go directly to CFV
> without another RFD [has it already hit the posting queue?]?
> I'd say it would require another RFD, but I also tend to be
> a bit more extreme on the issue compared to those who matter.
It all depends on the votetaker, but I've seen previous cases where
a change between the final RFD and the PQ was allowed even though
that change addressed the main issue in the final RFD debate,
as long as the change itself was fairly minor. I trust that it's
obvious we're talking about one NO vote here, so this change would
be minor in terms of votes; it would also be minor in terms of
content. I have a hard time imagining a UVV who'd reject it.
The real issue is whether asking for *any* changes at all between
RFD and PQ is OK, given the long delays this proposal has already
experienced. Is introducing another opportunity for a missed
deadline acceptable? Note that since this is a moderated group,
the moderators are in fact free to change the charter after the
group's inception; the voted charter is not the final word on this.
What I noticed when reading this RFD (note that I hadn't read the
2nd or 3rd RFD threads) was that there was a reference to blocklisting
not just being equivalent to blacklisting, but then the document
never came back to that, and this bothered me. I don't think I
was reading carefully enough to notice whether this dangling
reference was in the charter or just in the rationale, but I
concur with the original objector and with Ru Igarashi that it's
a problem. I'm not sure a definition of blocklisting is the only
reasonable way to solve it; a sentence naming a couple-three ways
in which blocklisting is used might do the trick instead.
If the proponents indicate any interest in revising, I'll try to
read more carefully and suggest some short text to add later this
weekend.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and clerk j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Joe Bernstein
> The real issue is whether asking for *any* changes at all between
> RFD and PQ is OK, given the long delays this proposal has already
> experienced. Is introducing another opportunity for a missed
> deadline acceptable?
I note with surprise that it is now fourteen days since the most
recent RFD was posted, and there has been no new comment from the
proponents.
This seems to be a group that could easily pass its vote, were it
ever brought to one. What's happening?
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/> At this address,
personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome.
Tom Betz
@reader1.panix.com:
>
> I note with surprise that it is now fourteen days since the most
> recent RFD was posted, and there has been no new comment from the
> proponents.
I'm just waiting for the CFV.
ba...@dmcom.net
Err, there can not be a CFV until sometime after the PQ is submitted. I
expected to have already seen a PQ submitted. Or discussion about
posible changes that might clear up one posters concern about what
blocklisting is.
Gary S. Callison
: Err, there can not be a CFV until sometime after the PQ is submitted. I
: expected to have already seen a PQ submitted. Or discussion about
: posible changes that might clear up one posters concern about what
: blocklisting is.
The person who needs to complete that PQ was in DC last week for the FTC
conference. That person has been suitably trouted, and the PQ _will_ be
forthcoming.
--
Huey
Kathy Morgan
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
It has been over 10 days--time to file the PQ so this can go to a vote.
:-)
--
Kathy
nuc_leus
Why don't you just create this group without any stinky "vote",
which is a big lie on the first place?
You ALL want it it seems.
Just send an email to herr fuehrer and his appointees,
the trilateral comission and the deal is done done.
Here is a quote by Brad Templeton,
one of the people instrumental during the creation
and evolution of the entire news distribution system
even before the usenet was born.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: USENET - it is over
References: <3A9353AB...@worldnet.att.net> <3C195139...@sfo.com>
<9vbl5t$4i3$1...@panix3.panix.com> <9vejea$spf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad
Originator: br...@news.netfunny.com (Brad Templeton)
Message-ID: <wc7T7.10286$Kg2.1212411@rwcrnsc51>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:10:04 GMT
------------------------ Quote Begin --------------------
[...]
As is the voting, which was just a fraud to make people shut up once
they lost a vote. (In those days, the debates would get long and
the person pushing for a group nobody else wanted would never go
away and admit defeat. Voting with the silly '100 more' rule
was not to create democracy, but to end the debate.)
--
Would you expect a product called "Windows" to give you privacy and security?
http://www.templetons.com/brad/
----------------------- End of Quote --------------------
>--
>Kathy
Jim Seymour
"R. Asby Dragon" <r_asby...@keromail.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> YEA and VERILY ..
> Looks very good from my POV; but I've never 'started' a new newsgroup
>
> adam brower & Jim Seymour :
>
> Thank you very much for all the effort; keep all of us posted as to progress.
> Is there any chance for any of us "hoi polloie" to vote ?
The thanks all go to Adam. I ended-up as a proponent only because
when the 1st RFD was published, he wasn't going to be available to
shepherd the thing for a few days (unavoidable conflict), we wanted
the thing to get moving and I was the one available that was both
sufficiently knowledgeable about what was going on and willing to do
it at the time ;).
I'm certainly still a "proponent" in the sense that I was one of the
folks that originally brain-stormed the idea with adam (and others)
and in the sense that I certainly support it. But let history show
that, of the two of us, it's been adam doing all the work.
--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jsey...@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Jim Seymour
This too has been discussed, relative to the new group, early on.
On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:07:05 -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
:news.admin.* is for topics related to Usenet administration - the fact that
:news.admin.net-abuse.email is located under news.* at all is really a
:historical accident, resulting from the fact that keeping related groups
:together is arguably more important than precise categorisation.
:Since the proposed group is very closely related to nanae, it should be
:placed accordingly.
(That was in the thread resulting from the 1st RFD.)
Jim Seymour
"Ernest Cline" <ernes...@mindspring.communism> writes:
[snip]
>
> At the very least, I'd want a reference to a definition of blocklisting,
> even if it were not included in the charter. If blocklisting was used only
> in one way, that lack might be acceptable, as people could search for the
> answer.
Late to the game, I realize, but...
Would an (eventual) FAQ satisfy you in this respect? Reason I ask is
that, IMHO, trying to define blocklisting in the charter would rather
unnecessarily bloat it. In the strictest sense, it's just what it
implies: a list used (presumably) for blocking. But in the more
general sense: it's come to pretty much refer to a wealth of
technologies used to "filter" email. For example, just as it relates
to actual blocklists themselves: a blocklists data can be used to,
tag, discard or (temporarily) "jail," as well well as block/reject.
It can be used as (additional) input into a weighting or scoring
systems to predict the probability that something is spam. Etc.
And that's just blocklist use wrt email (spam). Consider that
blocklist technology can be used with web servers, in BGP feeds...
Trying to put all that in the charter I think would be a bad idea.
Especially being as Things Change. I think the existing charter
adequately describes the point of the new group, without getting
bogged-down in unnecessary (IMO) detail. It does, after all, mention
"The increasing use and popularity of methods to propagate and
query a list of data in an attempt to reduce network abuse..."
One would think that bit, along with the other information contained
in the charter, and the name of the new group, should give one at
least a good *starting* idea of what it's all about.
adam brower
>
> In article <b8e92o$d6l$1...@reader1.panix.com>, I wrote:
>
> > The real issue is whether asking for *any* changes at all between
> > RFD and PQ is OK, given the long delays this proposal has already
> > experienced. Is introducing another opportunity for a missed
> > deadline acceptable?
>
> I note with surprise that it is now fourteen days since the most
> recent RFD was posted, and there has been no new comment from the
> proponents.
>
> This seems to be a group that could easily pass its vote, were it
> ever brought to one. What's happening?
>
i have been quite busy with matters outside of
usenet recently; google in n.a.n-a.e for the
gory details. wrt the question of a definition
of blocklisting, i am of two minds. i certainly
don't want to delay a vote any further, given
the patience with which our potential yes votes
have already waited, but i do see the merit in
expanding on the explanation in the charter.
i hope that this is not a defect which
will cause parties otherwise not interested in
the subject to vote "no." as noted elswehere,
it is something which can be remedied by
the moderators in an FAQ.
adam
--