John,
JL> While I am _very_ sympathetic to the need to limit the discussion,
JL> I really don't see how anything useful can be accomplished if the
JL> chair rules "principles of spam-abatement" to be irrelevant.
It is a small matter of seeking to have a productive meeting.
Discussion about the definition of spam or other broad topics, such as
principles of abatement are certainly important, but they also suffer
from a) taking a long time, and b) tending not to converge on a rough
consensus agreement.
By contract, discussion of specific techniques can be very efficient.
This falls under the category of "I may not know much about spam, but
I know what spam control mechanisms I like".
Yes, there are weaknesses in this approach, but they aren't as bad as
wasting an entire BOF debating philosophy.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>