RE: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com> Fri, 06 June 2003 23:02 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17757 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56N2ao05776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:36 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56N2aB05773 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17717; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:02:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQCJ-0007L7-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:35 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OQCI-0007L4-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:00:34 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56Mm1B05371; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56MlJB05328 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:47:19 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17465 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPxW-0007Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:18 -0400
Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OPxW-0007GP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:18 -0400
Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:45:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <G7BLV8GF>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:34:49 -0400
Message-ID: <B1F08F445F370846AB7BEE424365F00D012F27AE@ctxchg.ciphertrust.com>
From: Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>
To: 'Jon Kyme' <jrk@merseymail.com>, 'Scott Nelson' <scott@spamwolf.com>
Cc: 'ASRG' <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:34:48 -0400
This topic has been debated on this mailing list at least three times. Each time the debate goes on for days. After a while, we reach consensus but have gained no ground. Please read this carefully from the charter: "The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted email messages," "The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for certain communication and have the architecture support those desires." We could debate the meaning of spam forever. The point here is to generalize to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam' to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced. Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email. A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a consent-based communication system. As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse these assumptions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Kyme [mailto:jrk@merseymail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:06 PM > To: Scott Nelson > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 > > > > > > I fear nothing good will come of this thread. > > > > I think you're probably right. Maybe chair should outlaw this topic. > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Peter Kay
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Howard Roth
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Barry Shein
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Howard Roth
- RE: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Danny Angus
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Danny Angus
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … C. Wegrzyn
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Danny Angus
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Scott Nelson
- Re: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Jon Kyme
- RE: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Paul Judge
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Barry Shein
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Barry Shein
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Eric D. Williams