Dave Crocker writes:
I recently noticed RFC 5111 which describes an Exploratory Group, sort
of half way between a WG and a RG. This seems like a good fit.
Here's why it isn't:
The distance between the current state of the community and the
ability to start a productive working group is not merely the matter of
clarifying a few issues.
The community has no overall sense of privacy protection, nor
efficacy of choices, nor... well, many things.
And there's a significant barrier that may prevent the group from ever
obtaining that knowledge.
We don't know everything about how spam filters work. But IMO we don't need
to, because we know that: 1) all of the big four use machine learning and
feed everything they can into their machine (whatever "can" means in each
case) 2) there are some things about the details they are not willing to
disclose.
We know other things but really, it's enough: If the human ops at the four
biggest sites don't know the ultimate details of what their spam filters
are doing, and might not be permitted to describe it even if they knew,
then investigating the interoperability of any proposal with current
practice is intractable.
(Not saying that four sites is enough, just that those four are too big to
overlook, and spam filter compatibility is a requirement in today's world.)
This will essentially guarantee spending quite a lot of time and
money on an effort that will have little benefit.
+1
Arnt
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp