ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: Emerging Network Usage and Engineering Issues]

2003-08-19 08:27:20
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:14:33 PDT, NM Research 
<nm_research(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>  said:

Please qualify your false statement I would appreciate - what was A-net all
about.  IETF is a powerful mover, just as it spoke against spamming.  Without
IETF prodding nothing would ever happen.

As far as I know, the IETF hasn't said anything more helpful than "Spam is
Bad", and most of the anti-spamming work done so far has been totally outside
the IETF (and, in fact, quite often totally contrary to the requirements in
RFC2821/2822). I don't think it's been the IETF speaking about spamming, so
much as the fact that the service providers are tired of having to handle
anywhere from 1M (our mail server) to 2B (MSN/Hotmail) spams inbound per day.

And if the IETF *has* done something substantiative, it certainly hasn't done
anything to the actual amount of spam.  When people have seen even a 10% drop
in spam in-transit per month for 3 months straight, *then* I'll accept that
something is actually working.

And John Strack was right on the nuclear warfare thing too:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml  says:

(footnote 5) "It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming
that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear
war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on
secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting
did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to
withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks."

Attachment: pgpEIiBswC7bR.pgp
Description: PGP signature