Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
Somehow, I do not think that filling most of the schedule with
presentations primarily trying to tell us that spam is a problem is
appropriate. Nor do I think that presentations that present invalid
statistics or simplistic suggestions are all that helpfuyl.
Since my background is Nuclear Physics, I understand your concerns
about the methodology use to gather the statistics which were
presented.
Yet... the stats were about as good as anything else I've seen on
the spam problem. Yes, it was hand-waving, anecdotal and ad-hoc, but
until ASRG started, there was no industry forum which could gather
global statistics. Even now, it's not clear to me how one would
gather (or pay for the gathering) of potentially billions of messages
scattered across thousands of domains.
We can't instrument the core routers to see what traffic is spam.
Without that instrumentation, any statistics will *necessarily* be
self-reported, and incomplete.
So, yes, we need to make sure we do not review this as if it were a
working group meeting. However the meeting failed in plenty of other
ways.
I was hoping for presentations like "This is a picture of the
network. These points are where we see spam coming from. These are
the stats for spam at those points. These are the methods by which we
can provably stop some percentage of the spam. These are the costs of
doing so."
Since I've been one of the more vocal people here about spam, I
guess I should volunteer to collect some more statistics. I'll put
out a call for self-reporting of stats, or a poll, later in the week.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg