I think it would be helpful if I posted a link to where my old drafts can
be accessed: http://curtis.kularski.us/internet-drafts.
draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-03 was the document I previously sent to
the RFC editor for review, and I was told the following regarding the
draft:
" There MIGHT be room for a clever new
idea that was succinctly and clearly described. Unfortunately, your
document needs to be rewritten to be clear about the essential idea you
are suggesting."
That is what I tried to do in 05, as well as address some possible DNS
issues in 03 that were also mentioned by the RFC Editor (not posted here
because the Editor misunderstood some aspects of the draft). I think the
main problem with my drafts has been that I am focusing on what has been
successful in a relatively small implementation and not able to see what
would work best for everyone else.
This draft is not meant to set a standard of any type, this draft's
purpose is to provide documentation of one possible way to deal with SPAM.
This method isn't for everyone, but I feel that it could be useful to a
lot of people who are in a situation where there is more than one user on
the domain, but yet there isn't a huge amount of users on the domain
either.
My personal implementation of the procedure is more like what is mentioned
in draft 03, and I think that draft 05 is starting to stray a little from
the original intent. The reason for the sub-domain and not the user dotted
or user hyphened format is because it is more of a clean address, not
complicated and lengthy.
I really appreachiate input that is given about the draft and I hope that
I can find ways to address all of the concerns.
Curtis
Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system
that will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The
instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that
will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified.
- the most useful part of the draft is probably 4.-7.
- overall the draft IMHO has too less "beef" to be helpful in general.
And in will in no way reduce spam.
This document is an Internet draft and is on its way to the RFC Editor.
Is this something that is worthwhile to be published as an RFC?
Comments, anyone?
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg