IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 27 June 2009 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4853A67FF for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.645
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yC3luapiVomj for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821523A6403 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (adsl-67-124-148-164.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.164]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5RGYcVU031190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:43 -0700
Message-ID: <4A464A1D.1070100@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:37 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4A43B696.2000106@cybernothing.org> <4A449A7C.6070106@tana.it> <4A452A12.2070302@cybernothing.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A452A12.2070302@cybernothing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:34:27 -0000

J.D. Falk wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> 
>> However, I think an it could, and should, go beyond that. For
>> example, why is it not in the scope of that document "to attempt to
>> distinguish or justify any more detailed definition of [the term spam]"?
> 
> Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure that 
> a document is never finished.


+1

A long time ago, it was observed that other disciplines make progress because 
the latest round of workers stand on the shoulders of the giants who came 
before, but in computer science, we stand on their feet.

Constantly starting over to debate first principles and first definitions isn't 
just standing on those feet, it's stomping on them.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email