Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <> Wed, 24 June 2009 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E709E3A6963 for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROa-fJx+-w4t for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6E43A67BD for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Feb/2009) with ESMTP id n5O8W95v016301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:32:09 +0200 (MEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:34:14 +0200
From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090507 Fedora/1.1.16-1.fc11 SeaMonkey/1.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at boipeva with ID 4A41E489.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4A41E489.000/<>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] request for review for a non FUSSP proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To:, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:32:18 -0000

Claudio Telmon wrote:
> John Levine wrote:


> It could turn down to a private network in some cases, but in general
> people would still be able to contact each other. But if you mean that
> anybody should be able send messages to whoever he wants, and expect
> that they are accepted unless they are collectively classified as
> "spam", whatever this means (vs. being considered undesired by the
> receiver), or sent by a misbehaved agent, this is not what I want. My
> guess is exactly this, that a lot of people don't want it either, and
> would appreciate to be able to use the current tools and protocols with
> some control on correspondents. Cell phones are not a private network,
> and people like to have (some of) this control.

There are some very big philosophic differences between "cell phones networks" and 
internet. Among them, internet is a "freedom space". And that's the main reason why spam 
is a difficult problem to solve.

You're right when you say that sometimes some people may want to use internet as a private 
network. But this is contrary to internet philosophy.

IMHO, there are little chance to see new standards allowing/enabling using internet as a 
private network. But if people want to  do it, the best way isn't to set up a new 
standard, but just creating a proprietary and closed protocol to set up his private 
network. No need to publish it, nor to create a RFC about it, just set it up with your 

A good example of consent is Donald Knuth. He has a web page explaining how to contact 
him. It's simple and efficient, and doesn't require any new standard to continue working.