[491] in Kerberos_Protocol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

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

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jerome H Saltzer in Idaho)
Thu Aug 3 12:14:17 2000

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <v04020a03b5af4468446d@[209.161.45.107]>
In-Reply-To: <ldvwvhzj6bg.fsf@saint-elmos-fire.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:13:06 -0600
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
From: Jerome H Saltzer in Idaho <Saltzer@MIT.EDU>
Cc: krb-protocol@mit.edu, ietf-krb-wg@anl.gov

At 12:51 AM -0400 8/3/00, Tom Yu wrote:
>I have suggested to Doug that the krb-protocol list be merged with the
>ietf-krb-wg list by deleting all subscribers from krb-protocol and
>pointing it to ietf-krb-wg.  I propose that a week from today, the
>krb-protocol list will be emptied and made to point to ietf-krb-wg
>list.
>
>If you are currently on krb-protocol, I suggest that you subscribe to
>ietf-krb-wg by sending a message to majordomo@anl.gov.  (Doug,
>ietf-krb-wg-request@anl.gov should work as well, right?)
>
>If there are any serious objections to this proposal, please let me
>know.

Tom,

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,
I suggest another approach:

1.  Add krb-protocol as a recipient of the list ietf-krb-wg.

2.  Alert people who then find they are getting two or three copies of
messages to remove themselves from krb-protocol.

3.  Let contributors know that they no longer need to send things to both
lists.

Would this approach work equally well, or were you intending to solve a
different problem?

			Jerry Saltzer

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post