Fair enough. Established order has spoken and dissension is unwelcome.
The
message is clear, and I will act accordingly.
I think the consensus of the group is that defining spam is outside the
scope
of the group, this having led to vitriolic and unproductive arguments.
Discussion of the requirements for a solution to the problem of unwanted
mail
is according to my reading in scope (we have a draft on the subject anyhow).
I think that deciding to allow partial solutions to the spam problem is the
most productive step the group has taken. I remember the early days of the
group where any suggestion that was judged less than 120% perfect was
subjected
to torrents of abuse.
I think we should design mechanisms that solve what we conceive of as the
problem and leave the decision as to whether we have succeeded to the users
and the spammers. We are in a war here and as any (good) general knows it
victory is decided by the opposition. We will not have succeeded completely
until the attackers have given up.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg