Date: 11 Jun 1999 05:45:05 -0000
Message-ID: <19990611054505.21934.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms
References: <19990608031956.2660.qmail@cr.yp.to> <199906081512.LAA07941@astro.cs.utk.edu> <19990610194557.19401.qmail@cr.yp.to> <86emjjfm3s.fsf@strangepork.interhack.net>

Matt Curtin writes:
> I think that you're jumping to conclusions a little too hastily.  The
> only data you have is the amount of time it takes for Keith's system
> to accept a message from remote.

Wrong. Far more information is available. Message 5795, for example, was

   * received from playground.sun.com by cs.utk.edu one Thursday at
     14:29:07 -0500;

   * diverted by Keith's anti-spam system into a holding area, where it
     sat, waiting for human attention, without being retried; and

   * reinjected by moore@localhost the next day at 14:10:17 -0500.

This is one of several messages I pointed out before. You could have
looked in the archive rather than making a fool of yourself.

Keith admits that this is how his system reacts to a momentary network
outage. How can he not understand that this behavior is wrong?

> I fail to understand why you feel the need to shout, to question the
> competence of the area director, and to complain to IETF because your
> comment to the DRUMS list was delayed a little bit.

At least fourteen messages from several people have been delayed, in one
case by an entire week. At least two messages have been lost. If Keith
had pulled these stunts at an ISP, he would have been fired long ago.

---Dan