That is a correct assessment of the issue.
It should be noted in the proposal, and not ignored. In this way all proposal
may receive fair treatment with respect to how anonymity and accountability are
addressed. Though a proposal may present an obvious mechanism for obliterating
or ensuring accountability reviewers should be made explicitly aware of these
issues.
-e
On Monday, October 27, 2003 10:59 AM, Jon Kyme
[SMTP:jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com] wrote:
Having a requirement that SMTP creates anonymity in hostile
situations is a simple way to guarantee that every anti-spam proposal
will fail to satisfy that requirement, and will therefore be rejected.
No such requirement is made. Only that proposals address the issue.
If you have strong objections to anything in the requirements document - it
would be best if you made this clear.
Being damaging to anonymity would not be a fatal objection to a proposal.
That a proposal ignores the issue would (IMO) be.
--
_______________________________________________
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