Paul,
I'm very new to the list and have been astounded (a little daunted) by
the volume of traffic.
Thank you for re-publishing this requirements list. I think it's
imperative that we all focus on nailing that down as a means of
formalising a positive step towards a solution (or group of
solutions).
While the mail archive is a useful tool, it is also BIG. Using it to
determine exactly what the currently-agreed-upon requirements list is
is a difficult task.
Can I suggest that we take formalisation a step further by having, on
a web site (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html for instance) a
definitive list of requirements currently agreed upon. We can then
debate modifications to the list, and when agreed upon, update the
list.
The same approach could be used for possible solutions. With a name of
the solution, short description, status (e.g. In Debate, Rejected,
Accepted), and a list of pros and cons.
I think that to do this we would need some formalised approach to how
we agree on things. We obviously have a bunch of enthusiastic &
intelligent contributors to this list. I'd hate for any energy (or
reading time) being wasted on repeating and rehashing old subjects,
and for talking about off-topic items.
Would people find this approach useful ? Comments, suggestions welcome.
David Finnie
From: Paul Judge <paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
X-BeenThere: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:13:15 -0500
This is a draft of high-level requirements for anti-spam systems. This list
was started by Keith Moore. This draft incorporates feedback from
Balachander Krishnamurthy, Gary Feldman, Troy Rollo, Damon Sauer, Paul
Judge, and Hadmut Danisch.
1. must minimize unwanted messages to some acceptable level
2. must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost, reliability) of
wanted messages to a point that would effect the normal use of email
3. must be easy to use
4. must be easy to deploy, incrementally
a. must provide incentives to deploy for those doing the
deployment
5. must not depend on universal deployment to be effective
6. must not reduce privacy
7. must have minimal administration and implementation overhead
8. must have minimal computational and bandwidth overhead
9. must consider the threat and be robust in the face of such threats
-(potential new work item: a spam threat model)
some properties of the threat:
- adversary knows details of anti-spam systems
- adversary is intelligent and well-funded
10. should consider how legal issues affect, support, or constrain the
technical solution
_______________________________________________
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