On 4/16/2004 11:01 AM, Alan DeKok sent forth electrons to convey:
Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
People expect the standard we come up with to substantially reduce
spam flows (as recent press has confirmed). If it doesn't, and IMO
there's a big risk it won't, the result is LESS credibility than we
have now, not more!
Absolutely. But addressing that concern is a requirement for the
PR/marketing portion of any proposal, not for the technical portion.
Statements like this helped set the press' expectation:
"Identifying the sender of e-mail won't elminate 100% of the spam
problem, but [it] may get 50% to 80%"
I'm not aware of any information that would support this claim of Paul
Mockapetris'
(At least provided that only information that assumes spammers are
moving targets counts.)
It would be prudent for the IETF to come up with
standard restrictions on SMTP, to replace the ad-hoc hacks currently
in existence.
Yup, would make interoperation much easier.
My apologies for the tone of my last post, which certainly detracted
from the points I was making, however I am very concerned. While I don't
expect a FUSSP, I see some movement toward a JAHCASS. I agree with
everything Greg said in his last post to this thread, including the
criticism. Thanks, Greg, sorry Andy- all I meant by Officer Andy was
that I knew you had a position but didn't know what it was . I'll take
a break for a few days.
Re.
People expect the standard we come up with to
substantially reduce spam flows (as recent press has confirmed).
See http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0412marid.html .