http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-irtf-asrg-requirements-xx-01.txt
Looking over the (as-yet-undefined) definitions I see that there is a
1.3.31 for "Sender" but I don't see anything that would distinguish
between the originator of the message and the organization handling
the delivery. This is important because the two roles may be
separate, in which case the best practices for each will be somewhat
different.
2.7 Highly Effective
The proposal MUST provide an effective solution as determined
by the [TBD] algorithm. That blocks all appropriate messaging.
2.7.1 Rationale:
Although proposals may differ in approach all proposals will be
evaluated using an appropriate application of the [TBD]
algorithm or one of its derivatives. The [TBD] algorithm
provides a standard and objective measure for evaluation of the
approach.
I don't think I agree with this. In particular, a set of orthogonal
small changes might as a whole be more likely to be implemented, and
more effective, than any single change. Are we saying that small
incremental changes are ruled out simply because they are only
partially effective? What happened to the idea of driving spammers
into a corner?
2.8 (Persistently Effective) might also want to be clarified. I
agree that the solution needs to be persistent, but in the sense that
although spammers may find ways to avoid the measure, the measure
itself cannot be be trivially defeated. Again, the idea is to paint
spammers into a corner. If a particular technique can be avoided,
but only by exposing spammers in some other useful way, then I would
deem it to be persistently effective.
2.10 Single Solution
The proposal SHOULD provide a comprehensive solution that
impacts the greatest number of problems caused by [spam], and
usable or accessible by the greatest number of MTS users.
2.10.1 Rationale:
A single solution that will work for all people is the optimum
solution, designers should strongly consider methodologies or
approaches that impact the largest number of MTS users. A
solution that is optimal will also impact all of the problems
associated with [spam], such as [list of problem terms].
Again, this seems wrong to me. This isn't a technical problem that
you solve, it is a battle in which you need to contain the adversary.
I think a search for a single overriding solution runs the serious
risk of missing smaller steps which are far more likely to be adopted
and, in aggregate, more effective.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Next Generation Spam Defense
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg