At 07:01 PM 6/27/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
How is any of this consent/filtering related to the usual IETF purpose
such as protocol documents (RFCs, etc), network engineering, and not
just some ad hoc User Interface Engineering?
It seems to me the consent proposals (getting any attention) thus far
require no change to any existing protocols or standards, and don't
seem to imply any new protocols or standards.
Where in the stack would any of this fit and why does this group need
to be involved?
As I mentioned before there are two models here - network abuse model which
you are proposing and consent model which is defined in the charter. The
network abuse model as you propose would seek to find ways to detect and
stop spammers from using the Internet for abusive behavior (i.e. spam) It
may also include viruses, worms, etc. as a side benefit.
Both models in my opinion are equally good. However, they call for
different solutions and approaches. Both models will involve changing
existing protocols (i.e. SMTP) and defining new ones (like CRI). That is
where IETF gets involved.
The consent model specifically is not limited to the MUAs, but can be
enforced by MTAs on ISP level as well. In order to do so a framework and
various protocols must be worked out. I will be posting a document sometime
later on this week laying out both models in detail.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg