From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com>
...
So I'll repeat myself: let's have an anti-spam BOF
Face to face talk is likely to be of even lower quality than this
thread. With email with a broad audience like this, people can
squelch obvious nonsense with data or pointers to real data and
independent reports.
(e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=spammer+%22dictionary+attack%22 )
BOFs are transient committees and so are even worse than most committees
for creating things. All you might do in a BOF is discover whether
anyone is interested is dealing with spam.
and hopefully and
anti-spam wg. First order of business for this wg: analyze the spam
problem and then see if mechanisms can be found to reduce the amount of
spam by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude. After that, we can decide if it's
worth it to write a protocol and try to have it deployed.
That sounds more like research than protocol documentation and
standardization. Why have you rejected the repeated pointers to
the IRTF/IETF ASRG research group? In case you didn't intend to
reject them but just missed them, please consider:
http://irtf.org/
http://irtf.org/groups.html
http://irtf.org/charters/asrg.html
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html
or
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Major+Internet+Standards%22+spam
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com