[cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

[Wayne Thayer]

Ryan – with the exception of public@, all of our lists are configured to hold messages from non-members for moderation. Since not all CAs who would be subject to this requirement are members, I think the list you’re proposing would require the same configuration. Access to moderate a list is available to any member who wants to volunteer. We get a decent amount of spam in the questions@ moderation queue despite having a basic spam filter in place.

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM
To: Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>
Cc: Wayne Thayer <wthayer at godaddy.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

Wayne,

Could you clarify the extent of moderation?

That is, you highlighted Eddy as the Admin - but that's the Bylaws Section 6.2. Gerv's concern seems to be about reviewing spam queues, approving messages, adding/removing subscribers. Is that something you (or Dean) find yourself using? It's not something I've seen configured on any of the CA/B Forum Mailman instances (namely, hold for moderation), but is something that Mozilla has configured for their messages. That was the context and substance of what I was replying to Gerv about - that is, there's a mailing-list-admin function (of which I believe only GoDaddy has administrative access to mailman), and then there's the procedural question (which I believe you're responding to).

There's no new procedural requirements, so this is presumably only a question about the actual administrative function of the mail list.

As to Dean's point, the fact that we don't have a spam problem on the questions@ list, or hold for moderation, is why I don't think it's a substantive concern.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com<mailto:Dean_Coclin at symantec.com>> wrote:
I’m currently responding to questions as best I can. We haven’t had much volume on that list though.

Dean

From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer via Public
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 1:16 PM
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>; Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension

>>I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.

This is precisely how the Forum operates its lists – questions@ in particular, but all the others as well. And while Eddy Nigg was the long-time questions@ list admin, there is currently no one who really owns the task of monitoring the questions list in a timely fashion (and I suspect that timely moderation is quite important for this new list that’s being proposed). I am currently doing a lot of the moderation but am transitioning the work to Ben, which I believe supports the point that Gerv is making.

Thanks,

Wayne

From: Public <public-bounces at cabforum.org<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org>> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Reply-To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com<mailto:sleevi at google.com>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>>
Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Ballot 213 - Revocation Timeline Extension



On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org<mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>> wrote:
On 11/10/17 17:39, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> What do you believe requires looking after? Spam? Substance? Access?

Mailing lists don't manage themselves. Says someone who manages six and
has to clear the spam queues daily.

So your concern is a message being held for moderation and requiring manual review?

I do not believe that's not been a concern of any Forum mailing list to date, because that's now how the Forum has operated its mailing lists.

Would that address your concern?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20171011/14db6b24/attachment-0003.html>