At 07:53 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote:
[..]
>what should we be looking at right
> now?
> In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment?
I strongly believe that you are right, that an analysis of the consent
problem is important. I believe that one can get to a general framework for
anti-spam systems from first principles.
I think it tends to something like:
message classifier function
+ expression of recipient policy (consent expression)
+ policy enforcement agent
This is consistent with the charter which proposes these components as well.
---snip---
The research group will investigate the feasibility of: (1) a single
architecture that supports this and (2) a framework that allows different
systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of the solution.
Possible components of such a framework may include:
o Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a
policy that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications
o Policy Enforcement Component: This involves subsystems within the
communication system that enforce the policy. The overall framework may
involve multiple subsystems within the policy enforcement component. This
may involve fail-open or fail-closed approaches. With a fail-open approach,
the system must identify messages that do not have consent. For example,
this may include approaches that determine the nature of a message based on
its characteristics or input from a collaborative filtering system. With a
fail-closed approach, the system must identify messages that do have
consent and only allow those to be delivered. For example, consent may be
expressed by a policy, by a "consent token" within the message, or by some
payment that essentially purchases consent or delivery rights.
o Source Tracking Component: This component provides deterrence to parties
that consider violating the policy by facilitating identification and
tracking of senders that violate the policy. This may require
non-repudiation at the original sender, the sender's ISP, or some other
entities involved in the communication system.
Note that "consent" need not necessarily be in advance. It is within scope
for ASRG to consider frameworks in which receivers express their lack of
consent only after having received a message.
---snip---
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg