Jon,
The reformulation of the problem as one of consent helped clarify
views on this "social" (rather than "political" ?) ill.
Indeed. Notice how productive things have been, spending lots of time
debating definitions (repeatedly), lots of time making ad hominem
attacks, and no success at getting supportive technical work done.
This might seem like a "good thing" - but of course this means that
there
is no way of comparing proposals meaningfully. e.g. Scheme (a) will
probably be (very close to) 100% effective at stopping the set of
email
Careful use of the evaluation points suggested in the Technical
Considerations draft will show such things as adoption difficulties and
ease with which spammers can 'route around' the proposed mechanism.
This does not require a comparison with other proposal; it requires
conceptual and specification quality that can be evaluated on its own.
Development of strong community support obviates the need for doing
comparisons and artificially declaring choices among them.
the consensus seems to be
1. This list has yet to show anything that satisfies the historical use
of the term "rough consensus".
2. This list has primarily succeeded at convincing active anti-spam
workers to spend their time elsewhere; as such a consensus in the
current group is what statisticians politely call "not representative of
the larger population".
*You* have rechartered the group to work on the poorly defined "spam"
problem.
They have rechartered the group to work on technical specifications,
rather than endless debate about definitions.
Research Groups are usually
focussed and long term,
1. "research" is a term used with variable meaning, in terms of
practicality and timeframe.
2. "long term" is a term used with variable meaning.
2. There is a difference between "long term" and "forever". The rate of
progress in this group encourages the latter.
I suspect that this rechartering is a "political" issue, perhaps
there's
pressure to produce "appropriate" results in a predetermined
timescale.
Absolutely correct.
We need effective mechanisms, defined, deployed and used, before spam
destroys email. We are already under crisis pressure.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://brandenburg.com>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg