On 1/22/07, David Nicol <davidnicol(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
possibly violating Zooko's triangle
How so?
My growing suspicion is that the end result of this committee is going to
be current practices enumeration and reccomendations, with a bottom line
of "it isn't broken."
That's pretty close, but I think it undervalues the excercise.
What I hoped to achieve by outlining characteristics which the
techniques that have survived share (not all techniques display all
characteristics), and by identifying which characteristics the ones
which have died out violate was to catalogue a set of requirements
which we believe represent the requirements for a complete solution to
the problem.
Involved in this analysis is an analysis of the entities, which has
highlighted one big problem, which is that the ASRG *still* can't
agree a definition for spam, and an alignment of those definitions
against definitions in the corpus of RFC's which we call "email".
In spite of the fact that we may review current practice and arrive at
"it isn't broken." I believe we may also arrive at these conclusions:-
"it isn't complete", "it is understood", "some aspects are well
advanced" and "The scope is clear". If we're lucky we might also get
"we know what the gaps are", and if we're smart "we know how to fill
them".
d.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg