At 12:42 AM 6/28/2003 -0500, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
>> There was some more fundamental (but probably premature)
>discussion of "consent" early in the life this group.
> The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's HTML
blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that.
I think that my approach, with sender/recipient-pair-based permissions
list and
a (perhaps multi-stage) transition strategy as I suggested would clearly
make a
big reduction in spam volume (bytes at least), and the system is simple
enough
that users could understand and deal with it.
I think it's a big bonus that it (the SAME mechanism) also would take a big
chunk out of viruses/worms/trojans (and I spent the last half of today
disinfecting three systems at one of my consulting clients... all three
systems
had multiple infections of Bugbear and Klez... several variants of each).
I also like the fact that my approach doesn't require a global consensus
or even
a "standard" for how to implement it. It can be implemented on an ISP-by-ISP
basis incrementally.
There have been many approaches discussed in the group. My problem is that
all of these approaches can be fit into a general framework of either
network abuse model or consent model, and would make it easier to deal with
all of them since many common features would stand out and can be compared
easier. I would like to define these frameworks as per charter, and then
see how different anti-spam approaches including yours will fit in and
compare them.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg