On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:07:24 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Terry Sullivan wrote:
Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a need for a some sort of
active (though not necessarily particularly time-consuming) trap
address maintenance effort. Otherwise, the only real opportunity
for *research* (as opposed to debate) lies in
analysis/characterization of archival data.
What is the bottom line? Can you elaborate on your desired steps
and what resources you require?
Actually, I was sorta hoping to inspire others to contribute their
superior expertise to the discussion/effort. Compared to several
folks on here, my experience with trap addresses is minimal (and
almost entirely accidental).
I can help to identify/clarify/support the analytical goals that a
trap address group might be asked to fulfill, along with helping to
scope out the data/metadata requirements. But I'm really neither
qualified nor equipped to spearhead such an effort. (Remember, I'm a
statistician, not a mail admin.)
So, I guess the first step is for folks who're both able and willing
to coordinate (or contribute to) a trap address effort to "raise
their hands" (failing that, to write me/the chairs off-list). For
security purposes, the group should be small (again, no more than a
handful of individuals) and thus needs to be composed entirely of
folks both willing and able to actually contribute
time/effort/expertise (and to sign NDAs). If there's sufficient
interest, the group could assemble and begin work almost immediately.
If not, then the ASRG research agenda may need to be trimmed back.
As for archival data, SpamArchive and others provide lots of it.
The FTC also maintains a spam archive and they might be open to
the idea of running something against it if we ask them.
Hey, I'm all for analysis of passive data. But many of the
questions/proposals, etc. that have been floated on this list, from
greylisting to 550/CR, can't be answered by analyzing archival data.
Asrg mailing list