Re: email and spam (was: Re: namedroppers, continued)

Dave, John,
at least in the case of spamming, it seems there is an agreement on the 
interest of cataloging the internet engineering frequently proposed 
solutions, to get a complet picture of the various existing and dropped 
propositions. This might both help not to repeat the same propositions and, 
may be, to discover usefull variations or, anyway, to help the thinking.
I understand that the difficulties would be:

- this could be perceived as a way to laugh at propositions. This is not 
the idea, and it can be adressed in having the author registering himself 
his suggestion, with a field reserved to quote the corresponding drafts 
and/or resulting RFC(s). It would help to quote references in drafts.
- this has neither to be verbose nor too terse. I would suggest a character 
limit and a link to a position page or a site (case of a commercial 
proposition) of the author.
- this should help debates. The author should be able to update his text 
and links.
- one needs the resources and staff. I am ready with anyone interested to 
start working on this if it may help. I made registered "iefps.org" by 
world(_at_)wide to that end (so we may freely discuss it). May be could ut be 
understood as "internet engineering first proposed suggestions" to make it 
some kind of historical repository (showing this is a positive service). 
Also a way to pay our common due to the initial good idea's proposers (like 
for the Cluster or the Catenet issues?). To do that we could think of a 
"ticket" system, the author may register and update further on (but not 
delete to keep it serious). It would ask for some classifications or 
keywords permitting to sort them by themes?
jfc


On 03:17 16/01/03, Dave Crocker said:
> John,
> Before someone makes suggestions about the magic bullet that will solve
> spam problems, they should at least familiarize themselves with the
> rather interesting range of startup company approaches to handling the
> problem.  Everything ranging from keyword filtering by a commercial
> version of spamassassin, to patenting a haiku.
>
> And they should become familiar with the public policy and politics
> debates on the topic.
>
> This is a multifaceted problem, including the minor fact that people's
> definition of "spam" is highly variable.  At this stage it appears clear
> that no single magic bullet is possible and that we should start viewing
> spam the way we view roaches.  We don't like them.  They are bad.  We do
> a range of things to get rid of them.  It all helps.  But we do not
> eliminate them.  We simply reduce them to a tolerable level.
>
> d/
>
> Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 3:22:06 PM, you wrote:
> John> Almost all of the measures you have suggested have serious
> John> side-effects or critical prerequisites.  In the last analysis,
> John> most of us would rather put up with a little spam than pay the
> John> prices involved.  Others are sufficiently fed up with spam that
> John> they are willing to consider some very radical changes to how we
> John> use email.  But, regardless of how that comes out, the decisions
> John> have been fairly explicit: people have thought of your
> John> suggestions, and others, and their impact, and have made fairly
> John> explicit decisions about preferences.  My comment about X.400 of
> John> a few weeks ago was intended to address those issues, but
> John> apparently made a reference too far in the past, or too subtle,
> John> for some of the people who have been participating in the
> John> discussion.
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave <mailto:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 06/12/02