RE: namedroppers, continued

One of the main reasons why anti-spam measures are failing is that the
spam-artists are fraudulently hijacking people's email addresses so as
to bypass anti-spam filters.

My reading of the open enrollement policy is that anyone can contribute.

I don't think that a secondary manual filter by which the first post to
the list by an individual was only forwarded after moderation would
breach that principle - but it would be one heck of a lot less work for
the chairs than having to moderate every message.

I certainly do not consider it an imposition on those who want to
pontificate on Internet protocols to require them to actualy eat the
company dog food and sign their messages with either PGP or S/MIME.

I am not pushing a corporate interest here, a self signed certificate
would be fine. I think that one of the problems for the PKI world is
that the perfect has been the enemy of the good. OK you can argue that
it would not exactly hurt VRSN if more people started to use security
routinely, I don't think that would hurt the IETF either.


                Phill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:me(_at_)aaronsw(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:43 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; namedroppers(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
> ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued
>
>
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > The only way to resolve this issue properly would be to
> require every
> > submission to an IETF mailing list to be cryptographically signed
> > [and] to require the subscribers to register their signing key
> And how do we prevent spammers from registering their signing key? Are
> you suggesting that we change the IETF's open enrollment policy?
>
> --
> Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature