On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:34:06 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(_at_)plaidworks(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 11:53 AM, J C Lawrence wrote:
It is, or at least can be. Flexible systems are like that.
but at the same time, we're likely talking about multiple systems...
Bingo. I would much prefer not to marry to a specific implementation,
design, architecture, or deployment. Let the decisions be made at the
points where real metal hits real road, and then __allow__ them to
migrate up the stack if desired.
I'm not about to define, declare, or formally dictate a socio-political
war at this stage in the game.
An MUA-based individual whitelisting system that interfaces to your
address book (and stores your permission scheme in your address book)
would solve most of the complexity for Joe User with some careful
design, and make it portable to the user, not the server.
<I carefully won't mutter things about LDAP schemas and how they *could*
tie in fairly nicely with this and John Fenley's proposal>
Then other systems can be put in place at the server and organization
levels if you want to manage the larger infrastructure issues (role
accounts, web scraping, etc), and to implmenent organizational white
and black lists and such. Those can be managed by "us pros", and be
more complex, and yet stay out of the way of a client also doing their
own personal management on a micro level.
No you got it...
Put resources and intelligence at the point where they are actually
used, and where there are humans with the subjective and contextual
definitions to make up their own damn minds for themselves.
No need for "a" solution here, and frankly, it's not what we
want. There's a use for organizational spamblocking and personal
spamblocking (i.e., mail.app's stuff on OS X), and a use for
organizational whitelisting systems and personal ones. they're
complementary, the only real issue is making sure they don't get into
turf wars by C/Ring each other to death. ("you identify first!" "No,
you!") -- but that's no worse than vacation bot wars, is understood,
and we should realize up front we won't solve that problem,
either.. (grin)
Up until a few years ago most vacation bots Did The Right Thing. Heck,
it may still be true. I'll be happy if we can design a system that:
a) Is easy to understand without an EBNF or RFC
b) Can be easily and simply made to work correctly based on that
understanding.
c) Isn't trivially compomisable by people who do read the EBNF and
have evil intent.
We know there are going to be screw ups. There always have been and
there's little sign of that pattern changing. Deal. As long as we make
it easy to Do The Right Thing -- especially if we manage the miracle of
not making it attractive to Do Something Similar But Different -- then I
think we can rest content and get back to our happy rounds of bitching
and moaning at the horrible state of affairs with the screw ups and how,
"People had better manners and were smarter in my day..."
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg