investigating meta-spam

I consider working on a Draft on "meta-spam" and would be interested 
in comments and in interests to participate to a preparatory mailing 
list. I define meta-spam as:
"sending non approved information within regular protocols, headers, 
contents, etc. for a further results unexpected by the receiver".
This definition is most probably to edit. May be I just rising here a 
well known issue named and worked on in another way?
The concept certainly covers meta information in HTML pages, tags in 
protocols, URLs, etc. that can be used in filtering traffic (OPES, 
censoring, profiling, obtaining information on privacy, personal 
behaviours) or further retrievals through search engine queries. I 
may also cover some "subliminal" networking applications: sending 
semi-hidden information to obtain a desired user comportment like in 
advertising, intox, denials of thinking, psychological war.
Conceptually this may be a fundamental mechanism of cybernetics (as 
the art of efficient independent system governance in using analog 
models obtained by feed-backs). There is therefore a need to 
distinguish between legitimate, necessary, authorised meta-informing 
and meta-spaming. And to define authorisation/prevention (like for 
example the cookies related arsenal) and IFF (information friend/foe 
filtering). Trolling is probably a form of meta-spam. To which extent 
string oriented solutions helps meta-spaming? In ASCII, in 
multilingual environment? What are the pollution possibilities (for 
example using URL meta-spaming, using homograph meta-spaming, what 
about the babel names [use of the punycoded version of an IDN]? etc.).
Hacking in using plain text information rises the question of the 
nature of the architexting we use all the time and of networked 
languages. What is the XML, HTML, etc. security solutions? It is also 
a problem for the concept of "para-data" which is fundamental to the 
DRS I work on (distributed registry system) and to the multi-Internet 
architectures (for example using classes): the legitimate conditions 
for co-working systems to hold in parallel different data for the 
same meta-data.
I am not familiar with applications firewalling but I suppose it is a 
problem their designers meet?
The most immediate concern is when an RFC may help meta-spaming over 
private issues or represent a security threat: it should then be part 
of the security considerations. The resulting commercial, hatred, 
privacy and civil rights, etc. violations incitements or 
manipulations should be considered. Structural ways should be found 
to make them impossible. When one considers the importance of the 
spam, on-line advertising, privacy protection, etc. in the users 
concerns, no one can doubt that the identification of meta-spaming 
characteristics and of the ways to contain it is a key issue.
This is most probably one of the most achieved because one of the 
simplest vector for machine, mental, community security violation?
Thank you for your comments.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf