On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:07:14 -0500 Keith Moore wrote:
+------------------
|
| > > - should not depend on universal deployment to be effective
| >
| > This is highly desirable, but not a rigid requirement.
|
| none of these are rigid requirements. actually this is a pet peeve of mine
-
| if these exercises get seen as attempts to establish lists of requirements
| then everyone tries to justify his pet feature as a requirement. they are
| "criteria" or "desirable goals". and it's perfectly possible and reasonable
| for one desirable goal to run afoul of another one.
|
| the point about universal deployment is this - if in order to be useful, a
| spam-blocking scheme requires wide deployment, and no benefit results until
| that condition is met, then if there is doubt that the scheme will be widely
| deployed, it becomes difficult to get people to invest in it. all things
| being equal, a scheme which can be incrementally deployed and which produces
| some immediate benefit for those who invest in it is more likely to succeed.
|
| > If I choose to adopt an email solution that requires senders to
| > me to use a particular new technology in order to reach me,
| > is that a dependency on universal deployment?
|
| it depends on how you define success. if by imposing the particular new
| technology you get rid of spam without discouraging people from sending you
| mail that you want to receive, then it was successful for you. if it does
| discourage people from sending you mail that you want to receive, then it
| probably was not successful for you. of course, what is successful for you
| might not be successful on a large scale.
|
| Keith
| _______________________________________________
| Asrg mailing list
| Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
+------------------
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg