Subject: Re: deletion of people from krb-protocol (mailing list merge)

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Aug 2000 14:33:19 -0400

> One of the features of the krb-protocol list is that MIT students who think
> they are interested in following the proceedings can temporarily and
> quietly add themselves to the list using already-familiar Athena list
> maintenance facilities, and equally quietly remove themselves later; if
> they graduate without removing themselves, the system automatically removes
> them when their MIT mailbox vanishes, minimizing bounces.  These are nice
> features that are worth maintaining.

> You didn't mention the reason for proposing the merger, but if it is
> because some people are on both lists and receiving two copies of messages,

Basically, redundancy.  We've got two different lists used for mostly
overlapping purposes.  (Not entirely -- krb4 protocol questions might
not be welcome on ietf-krb-wg, and WG procedural matters wouldn't be
of much interest to krb-protocol.)  One rather quiet at MIT, and the
IETF list newly set up and getting traffic.

I would've suggested just re-using krb-protocol for the working group
traffic, but our mailing list maintenance is still completely lame as
far as dealing with external subscribers.  (In terms of visible
functionality, I don't think it's changed any since you were at
Athena.  Well, maybe it crashes less.)  Jeff's been working on a web
interface, but IMHO the support isn't complete if it can't handle
email requests like every other list manager does, preferably with at
least minimal authentication, and ideally automatically deal with
bounces somewhat intelligently, like some of the more modern ones are
starting to.  Tom and I already get more than enough bounces off the
Kerberos list, as do the senders.

Besides, ANL might be more likely to stay off lists like ORBS.

> I suggest another approach:
> 
> 1.  Add krb-protocol as a recipient of the list ietf-krb-wg.

I think Doug has his list set up to reject messages from
non-subscribers; this could lead to confusion among new krb-protocol
subscribers who decide they want to contribute to the discussion.

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Aug 2000 18:04:58 -0400

> That could be a problem.  Is it actually set up that way now?  My message
> earlier today didn't bounce, but maybe that list simply deep-sixes rejected
> messages?

It may be that Doug changed it.  IIRC, a couple of the earliest
messages he sent to the list were copies of bounces because the RFC
editor (or whoever) wasn't on the list.  But if non-members can
submit, yes, thit would be fine....

---

From: "Douglas E. Engert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 20:03:38 -0500

> > earlier today didn't bounce, but maybe that list simply deep-sixes rejected
Nothey are sitting in my inbox, waiting for me to approve the message.
The intent of maing a private list was tro keep spam off the list,which it has
done, but I see there are a number of lists subscribed to this list. So 
people on thoes list wil have the same problem.

> submit, yes, thit would be fine....

Let me think about this on monday. 
-- 

 Douglas E. Engert  <[email-masked]>
 Argonne National Laboratory
 9700 South Cass Avenue
 Argonne, Illinois  60439 
 (630) 252-5444

---

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Aug 2000 19:18:49 -0400

>>>>> "raeburn" == Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]> writes:

raeburn> Basically, redundancy.  We've got two different lists used
raeburn> for mostly overlapping purposes.  (Not entirely -- krb4
raeburn> protocol questions might not be welcome on ietf-krb-wg, and
raeburn> WG procedural matters wouldn't be of much interest to
raeburn> krb-protocol.)  One rather quiet at MIT, and the IETF list
raeburn> newly set up and getting traffic.

At this point, krb4 protocol questions might best be served on the
[email-masked] mailing list, as it is likely to constitute a minimal
part of the traffic there.

Also, krb-protocol is the contact point for some of the current
internet drafts concerning Kerberos.  krb-protocol is quite a stale
list.  It seems that a number of current subscribers to it have
bouncing addresses, which I should get rid of at some point.

There is precedent for moving an IETF WG list formerly hosted at MIT
to an off-campus location and making the MIT list point to the new
list.  The cat-ietf list did this at some point.

raeburn> Tom and I already get more than enough bounces off the
raeburn> Kerberos list, as do the senders.

This is also true... the MIT mailhubs have this bad habit of not
rewriting the envelope-from address to something reasonable, after all
these years.

---Tom

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:46:29 -0700 (PDT)

> subscribers who decide they want to contribute to the discussion.

Supposedly the list is now unmoderated, and this message is to test that.

 - RL "Bob"