Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

> >
> > You might say something more like
> > positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent 
> > positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent 
> > etc...
> 
> I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they
> wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite
> simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we
> could standardise on.  That might be useful.

Well no, this isn't really the kind of thing that sieve
( http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ ) is for - as I understand it.

Indeed, somebody could standardise this - if somebody wanted to make it
simple for MUA to talk to policy enforcement agents. 

> 
> It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are
> things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering
> will be imperfect.  And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect
> it to become more and more imperfect.
> 

No - it isn't THE "Solution to Spam". However, you can plug A "solution to
spam" right into it.

positive_test(foolproof_spam_detector, engineargs, message) 
        => noconsent

It's one way of looking at part of a consent framework.

--

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg