[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'jonas.maebe@ugent.be' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)


On 12 Feb 2009, at 00:48, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Seth Johnson wrote:
(Urgent.  Send your note TODAY and CONFIRM the automatic reply from
IETF. You can cc campaigns@fsf.org . Three links below, FSF's action
page, Glyn Moody's blog, and the list announcement for TLS-AUTHZ at
IETF.  -- Seth)

Really, the IETF is a very open community, mail flooding the main
mailing list may be quite counterproductive; why non just subscribing
and contributing to the discussion? That would actually help who is
seriously defending your position:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55526.html

IETF doesn't want feedback.

That's not what I see in the message you forwarded. I just see a request from a person who has nothing to do with the entire discussion asking to stop spamming random people (other than that they work on one IETF standard or another -- that does not mean by definition that they define general IETF policy, nor that they have anything to say about the particular IETF standard you are concerned about).

Mail bombing campaigns are seldom a good idea. Especially when they are unleashed indiscriminately on a huge collection of independent technical experts who may or may not actually have anything to do with what you are talking about.


Jonas



(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)