Vernon,
HBP> Content filtering requires only single ended adoption.
And it is not subject to network standardization. ...
VS> I suspect that is more true than false, but more than half of the spam
VS> control systems now in at least real trial use (stopping millions of
VS> spam/day) involve aspects that could be subject to network standardization.
I like filtering systems. I think it likely that multiple such
mechanisms will be a permanent part of the email landscape forever.
None of that is relevant.
This is an IRTF group. It is presumably, therefore, intended to focus
on activities that are likely to be reasonable candidates for format
and/or protocol standardization.
So the problem with your saying that an activity "could be subject to
network standardization" is that you give no indication to what. While
I could try to guess, it would be far more helpful to hear how "single
ended" mechanisms, like receiver filters, offer an opportunity for an
interoperability (ie, networking) standard.
VS> SpamAssassin can also be viewed as moving data around the net in support
VS> of its content filtering in the form of updates to the default scoring.
That fact that some software has contact with a network does mean that
it is a candidate for a networking standard. So please indicate what
mechanisms and/or formats you have in mind.
VS> The only spam solutions that I can think of that might be called
VS> "double ended" are
VS> - authentication
VS> - sender-pays (money, CPU cycles, or anything else)
VS> - challenge/response
Any spam-related mechanism that involves some sort of accounting or
management among independent, cooperating components offers reasonable
possibilities, too.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg