Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
Chuck Mead wrote:
Agreed... though I would add a tiny set of additional caveats... to
wit...
"In ANY area where a [properly functioning and independent] standards
group exists... etc."
So... since the IETF is not a properly functioning and independent
organization I have no problem with doing what needs to be done.
Then you have to challenge IETF across its entire agenda, and do so in
the bodies that give it legitimacy, not a grassroots public.
I do not. There is no requirement for me to take that approach... they
maintain their own legitimacy (or not) through the viability of their
own efforts. MARID, at least, proved itself to be little more than a
puppet body owned and operated at the behest of the corporate interest
of one major company and likely several others. Several other IETF
groups I was participating in appear to have been co-opted as well.
Essentially their model appears to have broken down. Though that's their
problem it becomes ours quite quickly as those of us involved in this
effort have gotten involved to try and solve problems. If we cannot do
this through the IETF then we've got to find a different route.
For my part I am not interested in destroying or replacing the IETF. I
am interested in doing something about spam. If that means we must
create an independent anti-spam standards group (and IMHO we do if we
truly want to achieve results) then so be it.
--
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
http://moongroup.com