On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:11:02 +0200, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz
wrote:
Sorry if I'm a little out of subject of the thread.
I'm somewhat new to the group.
Welcome, Jose.
In this *particular* thread, we're actually not focusing as much on a
specific anti-spam strategy as we are discussing design requirements
for any experiment that we might undertake. The example experiment
(testing the effects of 550s) is real, but in this context, it's
being used as a convenient example.
But it occurs to me that Jose's question poses an interesting
question of its own.
Given the amount of sheer "setup" effort that's going to go into
*any* experiment involving trap addresses, I wonder if it would make
sense to "divorce" the setup effort from any particular experiment.
That is, I wonder if it makes sense to have a "trap address
setup/maintenance" effort, whose fruits could then be shared by
different experiments over time. (Control group addresses could
probably be "reused," tho' experimental group addresses would have to
be retired at the end of an experiment [depending on the experiment,
I suppose].)
I guess I'm thinking along the lines of telescope-time in astronomy,
or accelerator-time in particle physics. The "equipment" is
maintained independently of any single experiment, and shared among
researchers. The biggest downside I can imagine right off is that
the "trap address effort" would have to maintain a sufficiently large
pool to be able to allocate sufficient addresses to each experiment,
in turn. The biggest upside is probably obvious: one setup
procedure, one "ramp-up" period, followed by multiple uses. (It'd
suck to have to have each experiment have to thumb-twiddle for
several weeks during an individual "ramp-up" period.)
(As I say... I'm just wondering aloud.)
- Terry
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg