IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm

"Madscientist" <madscientist@microneil.com> Thu, 03 July 2003 19:46 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03880 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA24-0007IJ-O5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h63JkGOv028033 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA24-0007I4-Jp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:16 -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 PAA03871; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA23-0000ah-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:15 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA22-0000ae-00; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:14 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA1p-0007F9-4Z; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:46:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19YA14-0007EY-LO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:14 -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 PAA03835 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:45:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA13-0000Zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:13 -0400
Received: from mnr1.microneil.com ([216.88.36.96]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19YA12-0000ZR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:45:12 -0400
Received: by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix, from userid 93) id A825429C06C; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:44:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MicroNeil.com (mail.microneil.com [216.88.36.161]) by mnr1.microneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B9A229C06B for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:44:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MNR01 [216.88.36.10] by MicroNeil.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A78D87010140; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:44:13 -0400
From: Madscientist <madscientist@microneil.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm
Message-ID: <006e01c3419b$7ac82820$0a2458d8@MNR01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
In-Reply-To: <3F04810A.2000309@garbagedump.com>
Importance: Normal
X-Declude-Spoolname: D878d140.SMD
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:44:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>-----Original Message-----
>From: C. Wegrzyn [mailto:wegrzyn@garbagedump.com] 

>Seems like a lot of what you get with a cert. This is almost the 
>approach I took with the design I did. I can tell you it works 
>and works 
>well.
>
>Chuck Wegrzyn
>

Thanks for that. The thing I feel most strongly about concerning this
type of "consent" and/or "identity" mechanism is that certification
mechanism should be open, decentralized, and entirely in the control of
the end users. Unlike certs, which usually require some centralize
authority for a signature, simple shared secrets can be created and
destroyed entirely at the behest of the user groups involved and require
no cost beyond that effort. 

(It is possible to have certs signed by some elected member of the
group, or to self sign, or to elect some local authority for the local
COT, however the entire cert discussion tends to add unnecessary
complexity I think.)

_M


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email