ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

2003-06-01 15:52:47
On zondag, jun 1, 2003, at 23:48 Europe/Amsterdam, Vernon Schryver wrote:

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.

But aren't you supposed to have a BOF first before you can have a wg?

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.

Seems a worthwhile thing to do, although better results than just an answer to that question wouldn't be a bad thing.

                                                   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?

Because I'm not interested in researching the problem; I'm interested in solving the problem. (I've been doing "spam research" for several minutes a day for many years now.) I believe the IETF is capable of creating new protocols that would move the spam problem from something that is completely out of control to something that is easily manageable. If this turns out impossible after all, documenting why would be a very good thing. Then the researchers can have another go at it.

In case you didn't intend to
reject them but just missed them, please consider:

I'll look over the mail archives when I have some time.