IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> Sat, 27 June 2009 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <claudio@telmon.org>
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 317523A6842 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.767, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083]
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 BawVDn3z99D1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-4c.inet.it (slim-4c.inet.it [213.92.5.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86BD3A68AC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-149-251-208.dynamic.ngi.it ([::ffff:88.149.251.208]) by slim-4c.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.0-560 id ::ffff:88.149.251.208+Pn1mHUuND6; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:39:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A465961.2090901@telmon.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:39:45 +0200
From: Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090318 Lightning/0.8 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
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> <4A464A1D.1070100@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A464A1D.1070100@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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 17:39:30 -0000

Alessandro Vesely wrote:

>> Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure
>> that a document is never finished.

Why not take the opposite approach? Any relevant antispam technique must
at least significantly affect some UBE, or else it is probably useless.
Also, any approach that relevantly affects UBE can be considered
antispam. So, instead of trying to define spam, the document can simply
state that the proposal must at least relevantly affect UBE, while it
can affect other categories of spam.

-- 

Claudio Telmon
claudio@telmon.org
http://www.telmon.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email