ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: The utilitiy of IP is at stake here

2003-06-02 16:56:45
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
    > 'anti-spam' is the wrong focus. Spam is a social problem, not an
    > engineering one.

Sorry, I don't agree with this logic: if it's valid, then why 
try to design better locks, since theft is a social problem?

You actually make my point since locks don't prevent theft, they simply
slow the perpetrator and provide an indication to everyone that there is
an attempt to keep things behind the lock private.  The point is the
IETF can't solve a social issue, but can provide a technology that may
deter some, though primarily allows the social management infrastructure
to take action. 

The IETF can build a technology (for the sake of discussion
'authenticated email'), that in turn can be a building block in the
social management attempt to control spam. By itself it will not prevent
receiving unwanted mail. Using it rather than the solicitation,
merchandizing, & titillation protocol is an indication that the mailbox
owner has an expectation of exercising controls. If we required the new
messaging system to accurately include the time at every hop (something
as simple as make NTP part of the implementation set), the basis for
legal records can be established. Couple the basic authenticated,
time-stamped message with existing or enhanced spam reporting
mechanisms, and the foundation for actionable social recourse is taking
shape. 

Are there other reasons for having authenticated, time-stamped email? I
am sure there are many, but the first I would like to see is the end to
the designation that a fax is acceptable legal evidence, while email is
not. Will an 'anti-spam' focused IETF wg provide that? Maybe by
accident, but not likely. Will an 'authenticated email' wg produce an
end to spam? Not initially, but like the lock, the result is a
technology that enables the social management sphere to accomplish the
greater goal.

Tony