I think the proposal requirements are very good. I also think it will be
vitally important to clearly define:
1. what is spam.
2. what are the "subsets" of spam that will be addressed per 2.6
3. what is "legitimate" email per 2.8.
While we are looking into the eye of the storm with the above
definitions, I feel it will be vital that this group come to some
consensus as to what is spam and what is not. If we can't clearly
define the problem we cannot hope to clearly define the solution, nor
can we clearly evaluate proposals.
Peter Kay
www.titankey.com
The only technology that stops spam BEFORE it is sent
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:51 PM
To: 'Barry Shein'; bob(_at_)wyman(_dot_)us
Cc: 'John Fenley'; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Short-term versus Long-term focus: A bit of economics (
was: RE:
[Asrg] TitanKey and "white lies"... (..."improves" C/R utility?))
I strongly suggest that the group review the proposed (draft-draft)
requirements <attached> and see if they meet the goals of this group.
-e
On Monday, June 02, 2003 12:23 AM, Barry Shein
[SMTP:bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com]
wrote:
On the other hand, spam has been around for almost 10 years, and has
certainly been a major concern at public sites since at least 1997,
almost seven years ago.
So, although a quick solution of some magnitude is almost mandatory
just to stop something major kicking over the entire chessboard
(death
of the net and all that), let's not completely rule out so-called
long-term, slow adoption approaches with 5-10 year horizons or even
longer.
8<...>8
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg