Re: Pro SPAM WG: How security could benefit from high volume spam

Peter,
the first step in creating a WG (RFC 2418/BCP 25) is to discuss it 
with an AD. The problem is that one can consider different approaches:
1. chaffing as a Security Area issue. But there are much more 
environment as it is the remote global user protection (and not only 
his machine).
2. transmitting in the noise. This seems to be then an Application Area issue.
3. the way an individual persons may use the Internet. This is usage 
architecture. Then in Operations and Management Area.
4. this may lead to a battery of practical ways to extend and 
organise the internet and to new protocols, hence in the Internet Area.
5. there is an obvious need to authoritatively document Govs and Law 
makers and to negociate with them. The IETF is not suitable for that. 
The IAB can document, but not negociate. The place for negociations 
is the IGF, but not here yet and no interface with the IETF either.
As you point it out, every sector of the Internet technology is 
concerned and the concepts of the internet and of its economy may be 
totally changed. I saw your site and I understand your concerns about 
the French DADVSI law. But understand that DMCA is a lenient version 
of the treaty. EUCD is a step further (how is its German version?). 
DADVSI is an absurd step further. But next will be DMCA II, based on 
the DADVSI "success". So, transmitting in the noise may become the 
usual way the Internet functions, with a necessary opposition from 
Governments and an economical big difficuly. Areas of the Internet 
will be cut-off. We will get a "noise divide".
I suggest that everyone can comment on this WG-"user protection 
strategies" project, so we may have more elements to document our 
question to the IESG to know which area to chose.
jfc

At 11:31 16/12/2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
> A WG?
>
> Karin and me are interested.
>
> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> > At 23:10 14/12/2005, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:46:42PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > > > The best way to hide a signal is noise, is that's your idea ?
> > > > Makes sense from my POV.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily the _best_ way, but one that works under many
> > > circumstances.
> > > Some questions are:
> > > How do we deal with the total surveillance?
> > > Do anti-spam measures make surveillance easier?
> No, I dont want to bash the one and only root again, but never did I
> receive any SPAM an my peter(_at_)mail(_dot_)5wc address.
>
> This too could improve our position. Which root does the guy use - or
> has he simply freaked his /etc/hosts?
>
> Hadmut, I agree with your idea and I switched my spam filter off from all
> my GMX mail accounts. They are worthless anyhow, because I permanently
> have to read the spam folder to find lost emails. I still have to fight
> sorbs, because they dont even accept my own emails from my host
> echnaton.serveftp.com wich has a dynamic ip.
>
> > Hadmut,
> > not much success with your suggestion! Too much European centric at 
> > the moment. Your proposition is of real interest as part of a 
> > picture to study the noise as a general protection (conflicting 
> > information, spam, revamping web sites 1000 times a day, meta-spam, 
> > tags, EUCD, civilrights protection, bandwidth cost, site legal 
> > registration, multiligualism, debate orientation, etc.). The French 
> > law related debate make it very interesting, and important, however 
> > too complex for current users at this time. This fits the interests 
> > I have in the emergence of an "over the ISO layers" Internet 
> > through a grassroots process. How to use the Internet? But the IAB 
> > discuss list leads to nothing.
> The French law made me move the sources from IASON
>
> http://iason.site.voila.fr/
> http://www.kokoom.com/iason/
>
> to sourceforge. I dont want to fight the music industry with a law I dont
> even understand. IASON has nothing to do with music but it has to do with
> copyright.
>
> > Why not to try to shape a WG Charter on this? I do not believe the 
> > IESG is able to follow. But when I see all the ICANN, IETF, 
> > Unicode, etc. meetings, publications, etc. etc. about 
> > "internationalization", partly to oppose my long enough opposition 
> > which permitted me to reach Tunis. One could expect that Brussels 
> > could be interested at the end of the day. And if the IESG does not 
> > follow, we will have made our duty, before going elsewhere? I do 
> > not think that the balkanization they impose on us is a good thing.
> > jfc
> Karin and me helped building two balkan DNS roots. Why not do something
> serious now :)
>
> Cheers
> Peter and Karin
>
>
> --
> Peter and Karin Dambier
> The Public-Root Consortium
> Graeffstrasse 14
> D-64646 Heppenheim
> +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
> +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
> mail: peter(_at_)peter-dambier(_dot_)de
> mail: peter(_at_)echnaton(_dot_)serveftp(_dot_)com
> http://iason.site.voila.fr
> http://www.peter-dambier.de
> http://peter-dambier.site.voila.fr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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