Subject: Formal SPAM Compliant filed against Anderson...

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 08:28:22 -0700

Folks - I have had it with Dean and his actions in spamming me after
being thrown off of IETF lists.

Mr. Anderson has created a set of IETF mirror lists which he calls
"IETF-Honest" and which he subscribes IETF members to against their will
after being told numerous times to cease and desist.

Obviously the only recourse is a formal spam compliant with the FTC so
the first complaint's filing number is 26303937.

I would encourage all of you - and I mean all of you who are as annoyed
with this spamming as I am to visit the FTC website and file your own
complaint as if there are 10 or 20 of them independently filed, the FTC
will in fact take action on this abuse.

http://www.ftc.gov/spam

Have a nice day.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:25:14 -0400

I think Dean does a good job of keeping the IETF honest.

cheers
joe baptista

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:28 AM, todd glassey <[email-masked]>wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>

-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11:28:01 -0600

> I think Dean does a good job of keeping the IETF honest.

If only we could say the same thing about the IETF's effect on Dean.

/psa

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 May 2010 17:42:16 -0000

>the first complaint's filing number is 26303937.

CAN SPAM only regulates commercial mail.  Dean's mail is incoherent and
annoying, but it's not commercial.

He still uses 130.105/16 that he stole from the OSF and 198.3.136.0/21
that he got in 2004.  Nullrouting those blocks can improve your
quality of life.

R's,
John

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 10:48:04 -0700

> I think Dean does a good job of keeping the IETF honest.

Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
compliant.

Todd

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 20:06:47 +0200

> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam

I direct your attention to the IETF's standard for unilateral list 
unsubscription, RFC 5228 as extended by RFC 5429.

Dean subscribed me too, but I had forgotten about it until just now.

Arnt

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 11:21:35 -0700

> unsubscription, RFC 5228 as extended by RFC 5429.

Arnt
These are extensions for Sendmail. The problem is that Dean created a
list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it.  The members
have NO passwords and cant get them without interacting with Dean making
this harassment.

As to whether the IETF postings are commercial or not they clearly are
since they are work on standards for commercial networking.

Todd

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:47:37 -0800

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM, todd glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> with this spamming as I am [ ... ]

One is reminded of the old saw about not having to be faster than
the bear, just faster than your hiking companion.

Melinda

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 00:30:13 -0400

Has anyone bother by Dean considered using filters as a means of dealing
with this?

Joe

-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 06:48:01 -0700

> Has anyone bother by Dean considered using filters as a means of dealing

The problem with Filters is that you miss communications as part of the
vetting process, so you are not properly informed. From a professional
standards practice this is a serious issue.

What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the
history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random
and uncontrolled censorship.

Todd

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:06:59 +0200

> and uncontrolled censorship.

You seem to be saying that pests cannot be kicked off WG/IETF lists... 
or do I misunderstand?

Arnt

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:26:28 -0400

All human systems of sufficient size and significance need a means of
protection from "abuse of process". This IETF process uses email and
thus needs protection from the abuse thereof.

In my opinion, the IETF method of deciding to bar people from various
mailing lists is fine and the IETF is pretty liberal in this regard,
allowing people to continue to post who would be barred in other
groups.

Thanks,
Donald

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> You seem to be saying that pests cannot be kicked off WG/IETF lists... or do
> I misunderstand?
>
> Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:05:03 +0200

On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote:
> These are extensions for Sendmail.

No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others.

> The problem is that Dean created a
> list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it.

Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to reject the mail. The list 
software will eventually see that mail to you is persistently 
undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.

> The members

You don't need the password to unsubscribe. Just let the mail bounce, 
and have a nice day.

Arnt

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 09:01:28 -0700

> undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.

This alters the email stream meaning its use as evidence is made
non-functional.

> You don't need the password to unsubscribe. Just let the mail bounce,

Then I have filters in place which edit my reception of list business
and prevent or alter my participation. It also means I may miss critical
information someone else responds to and that is unacceptable.

Sorry, but this needs to get resolved, either in the IETF itself or in
court.

Todd Glassey

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:37:09 -0400

--On Wednesday, May 05, 2010 17:05 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to reject the mail.
> The list software will eventually see that mail to you is
> persistently undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.

Arnt,

However appropriate it may be in this case, I have to object to
that particular advice.  More conventional spammers (the
unsolicited, unambiguously-commercial, email variety) turn it
around to say "you can apply filters and therefore we are
causing no harm".    Setting up the filters (sieve script or
otherwise) has a cost, having the hardware and bandwidth needed
to receive (at least to the filtering point), analyze, and
reject the mail has a cost, and so on.   

Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous
and abusive at best and should not be encouraged in any way,
especially by telling the recipients that they can always filter.

    john

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 11:46:45 -0700

On May 5, 2010, at 11:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous and abusive at best and should not be encouraged in any way, especially by telling the recipients that they can always filter.

What can I say. I don't receive email from Dean, and there are a few - very few - others that I don't receive email from. But when people feed the troll by replying to the email, the abuse affects me. At minimum, I have to delete the well-meaning burst of chatter that follows.

Yes, I filter. None-the-less, I would appreciate it if courtesy prevailed. If it takes a court action to instill a modicum of courtesy, so be it.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 12:23:47 -0700

> Yes, I filter. None-the-less, I would appreciate it if courtesy prevailed. If it takes a court action to instill a modicum of courtesy, so be it.

Thanks Fred!

Todd

---

From: Robert Stangarone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 20:01:57 -0700

Todd,

I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
stopped the SPAM.

Of course, he stated that I had never requested to be UNSUBSCRIBED from
his list, which I had.

Bob

On 05/03/2010 08:28 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> ************************************************************************
> This mail originated from the whataboutbob.org  domain.
> For any issues related to this mail, or the whataboutbob.org
> domain, contact [email-masked]
> 
> Processed by .25
> ************************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
************************************************************************
This mail originated from the whataboutbob.org  domain.
For any issues related to this mail, or the whataboutbob.org
domain, contact [email-masked]

Processed by .254
************************************************************************

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:58:12 +0200

> I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean

This sounds like valuable operational data. Given your experience, can you confirm exactly what you had to send and to whom in order to make this happen?

> Of course, he stated that I had never requested to be UNSUBSCRIBED from

Of course.

Joe

---

From: Robert Stangarone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 19:50:23 -0700

Joe,

I responded to Dean directly and asked to be removed for the second
time, and noted that I had already contacted the FTC, which I had.

Here's the FTC link if you need it:

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en

Bob

Processed by .254

---

From: Rich Kulawiec <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:03:40 -0400

> that he got in 2004.  Nullrouting those blocks can improve your

+1

If null-routing is not an available option, firewalling those blocks
appears to be an equally effective way of causing the abuse to stop.

---Rsk