Protocol vs. Filtering- The distinction is rough vs. fine tuning.
There are stages in which anti-spam may be applied and I think that maybe it
would be helpful to define at which stage the suggestion is to be
implemented or deployed for it to be effective.
Rough is to destroy spam en masse.
Fine is to filter email from ex-spouse, annoying friends, and the boss.
1) Source: Service providers detecting and eliminating spam before it leaves
their network.
2) Receiver: Service providers detecting and eliminating spam before it is
delivered to the recipient.
3) Individual: Software that resides on the consumers computing vassal.
1 and 2 can accomplish anti-spam from a protocol based system (rough
filtering)
1,2 and 3 can accomplish anti-spam from a filtering based system (rough
filtering by 1 and fine filtering accomplished by 2 and 3)
I could add:
4) Hybrid: Collaboration between 1 and sending computing vassal.
5) Hybrid: Collaboration between 1 and 2
6) Hybrid: Collaboration between 2 and 3
Fine filtering would be up to 2 and 3 as to how this is going to be
accomplished. Corporations would surely be doing more fine filtering than
the individual. ISP's would most likely do less, if able to hand software to
the individual to do their own fine filtering.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:27 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get rid of
unwanted
email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point.
...
I strongly disagree. We should not be worrying about all possible
notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the
system, either technically or otherwise, such as by making mail less
useful to users. Communications from ex-spouses and creditors is
often unwanted, but does not harm the system. Only bulk mail
can harm the system.
It is not that it is impossible to consider mechanisms to deal with
broader classes of unwanted email, but that goals with well defined
limits are vital for success in any design effort.
Besides, mechanisms to deal with unwanted mail that is not bulk are
well established and very widely available. Most of the so called
spam filters offered by ISPs are suitable for rejecting mail from
creditors and ex-spouses.
If the mechanisms for dealing with unwanted bulk mail turn out to also
be effective against other kinds of unwanted mail, then fine. Dealing
with dumb jokes from your mother-in-law should not be a goal here.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg