ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics ( was: RE: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?))

2003-06-01 11:50:07
John Fenley wrote re: SMTP and SMTP related research:
a decision about whether or not ASRG should invest it's time 
and effort in a protocol that is old, and subject to abuse.

        Whatever our individual feelings about the long-term utility of
SMTP may be, the reality is that the output of this group is going to be
judged based on its ability to point to solutions that can reduce the
level of spam in the short to medium term. People feel the pain today
and want it to go away soon. To tell people that we have a solution that
will work in some far distant future, after everyone has converted to
some new and "better" protocol, may be intellectually satisfying,
however, it will be perceived as having limited utility.
        I believe that the research needs, at this stage, to focus on
how one can best respond to spam given the current environment
(including SMTP) and small deltas to that environment. This research may
be informed and assisted by observations concerning how spam might be
prevented in some "ideal" environment that might include new protocols,
however, the focus should be on solving the present problem. Once the
present problem is solved, or alleviated as well as possible, it would
then, and only then, be appropriate to focus the majority of effort on
addressing the issue of constructing a future "ideal" set of protocols.
        The issue here, as almost always, is a trade-off between
tactical short-term and long-term benefits. It is very much like
computing the present-value of some quantity of money. For instance,
what has more value? $100 in your bank account today? Or, $1,000 in your
bank account in 20 years? The answer, of course, depends on what you
think the interest rate or cost-of-capital is. Similarly, when thinking
about spam, you can ask which is more valuable: A system that rapidly
limits spam to 50% of its current level or one that eliminates it
completely in five years? In the context of spam, the cost-of-capital or
interest rate is the "pain and cost" of the growing levels of spam. If
you think that this pain is low, then you would be more likely to focus
on the long-term goal, if you think it is high, then you should focus on
the short term problem (i.e. at least try to reduce the "interest
rate"). 
        I believe there is much evidence that the average email user
believes that the "cost of spam" is high enough that the value of
immediate solutions outweighs the value of even a "perfect" system in
the future.
        Yes, it would be wonderful to solve the problem permanently.
However, it would be more "useful" or "valuable" to limit it in the
short term. 

                bob wyman

-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of John
Fenley
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:53 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R
utility?)


This is in response to the entire thread, not any particular message.
One major problem I see with Titan Key is that it relies on SMTP. If at
some 
point SMTP is superceded by another protocol this type of system will no

longer be useful (Perhaps the idea would be useful, but not the actual 
implementation.
This implies the broader question: Should the ASRG support methods that
rely 
on the SMTP protocol to work? Many have pointed to the SMTP protocol as
a 
source of problems, and I personally believe the chances of SMTP being
the 
standard email transfer method in 20-50 years are slim.
I see any solution that cannot stand on it's own, independent of
protocol, 
as a temporary bandaid on the larger problem (unless that protocol is 
perfect and will never ever be changed for all of time). Any support for
an 
old protocol simply extends it's life, and SMTP is showing it's age.

Also, changing how SMTP is handled to do extra checks can make MTAs more

vulnerable to resource consuming Denial of Service attacks because every

mail message received requires more resources in the receiver than the 
sender.

I see the solution to this as a decision about whether or not ASRG
should 
invest it's time and effort in a protocol that is old, and subject to
abuse. 
If the answer is no, then i believe much of the constant bickering over 
specific details in SMTP can be avoided. Solutions discussed here might
be 
more forward looking, and less reliant on squeezing as much as possible
from 
what we have.

I have often theorized that people can be divided into a spectrum by how

much effort is put into making money, and how much is put into saving
money. 
People at the extreme ends of the spectrum use almost all of their
energy on 
one or the other. There are people who almost live on coupons, and free 
deals, and there are people who are so focused on making the money that
even 
taking the time to go shopping would be a waste.
It is the people in the middle who seem to struggle the most with the 
balance. They are not as efficient at either one, so their less
effective 
saving of less money combine to cause money problems.

I believe the way to go is the production of resources, rather than the 
saving of resources. In this group I believe we should not scrape the
bowl 
to find every last crumb of good in what we have now... Enough people
are 
doing that. I believe that we, as a Research group, should be the most 
forward looking group that we can be.

John Fenley

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

_______________________________________________
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