Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:06:31 +0000

Thankyou for your comments.  This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system.  
Please find my response in the body of the message below.

Version 0.005 - Updated 6th July 2003

GIEIS - Global ISP Email Identity System - The Ultimate Anti-Spam System
a.k.a. - The Digital Reaper

© Including intellectual copyright, Mark McCarron 2003, All rights reserved.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis

Mark McCarron.

>From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
>To: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>,[email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis
>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400
>
>At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
>>....
>>
>>>From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
>>>To: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>,[email-masked]
>>>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP - GIEIS Analysis
>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:02:05 -0400
>>>
>>>At 03:47 AM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>4. Participate in defining the consent framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark's Response:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists.  There 
>>>>>>will be no greylisting.  A complete opt-out will be allowed by 
>>>>>>'GIEIS'.
>>>>>
>>>>>The group's consent framework is what we are currently working on.
>>>>
>>>>Mark's Response:
>>>>
>>>>With all the self-interested posts that appear here with inaccurate 
>>>>information, a coherent consent framework is highly unlikely to develop.
>>>
>>>We are chartered to created such framework 
>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If you 
>>>had been following the discussions for the last few days you would have 
>>>seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not wish to 
>>>contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create your own 
>>>mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is what the 
>>>author of the SPF proposal did.
>>
>>
>>Mark's Response:
>>
>>I have been following the discussion for the last few days.  Frankly, I 
>>have never seen so much nonsense posted in such a short period of time.  
>>The 'consent framework' is a few hours worth of work at most and full of 
>>things that are already known or done, how long did it take the group to 
>>develop this??  Since its creation???
>
>Nevertheless its what we are chartered to do. If you think its a bunch of 
>non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We were 
>chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The IMPP 
>WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to start of 
>with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions.

Mark's Response:

This issue has been well defined and the problem understood.  The 'Asrg' is  
just going around in circles.  I will start commenting on the proposals, in 
fact, every last one.  I'll soon remove the nonsense that appears here.

>
>>It is not in the financial interests of this group to develop a solution 
>>as it would put the majority of posters and their associated firms 
>>completely out of business.  Thus, to anyone with any knowledge of the 
>>subject, it is very clear when people run around in circles deliberatly to 
>>prevent solutions from being developed.  This is a daily occurance at the 
>>Asrg.
>
>There are many people present in the group that do not have financial 
>interests involved. Do not draw conclusions.

Mark's Response:

I am drawing conclusions based on what has been posted to this group not on 
those remaining silent.

>
>
>
>>>Additionally, this is a technical forum not a Madison Avenue marketing 
>>>firm. We are not interested in your marketing materials, or promises of 
>>>salvation from porn and spam. We are looking at technical details only 
>>>and do not wish to be informed of "how many jobs" your proposal will 
>>>create or how much money it will make.
>>
>>
>>Mark's Response:
>>
>>So, this is what you call a technical forum??  Hardly any of you could 
>>understand the 'GIEIS' system until big daigrams appeared.  Furthermore, 
>>the issue lies solely at the SMTP protocol and the existing architecture 
>>of the Internet.  Nowhere else.  It can never be fixed unless 'GIEIS' is 
>>implemented.
>
>We understood your proposal the first time. Its just that no one bothered 
>to analyze it until it got too annoying. IN YOUR OPINION, if the ultimate 
>solution for spam has already been developed (GIEIS) why bother having this 
>group? Why not disband the group and start implementing GIEIS? This group 
>wants to look at all the proposals not just yours, so why don't you create 
>a separate mailing list for your project while giving us the time to look 
>at everything else? Since we are "lost souls" already since we do not want 
>to accept GIEIS due to "conflicts of interest" why stay here? OR is it 
>because you want to gain the authority granted by the IRTF? The IRTF DOES 
>NOT HAVE POWER to develop standards, the IETF does. If you wish your system 
>to be standardized then write an Internet Draft and submit it to the RFC 
>Editor. Individuals have full power to do so without being affiliated with 
>specific groups.

Mark's Response:

No, you could barely grasp it a few posts ago.  In fact, I have corrected 
you enough times on the matter.  I would be happy to let this group discuss 
all the proposals it wants to provided they are legitimate proposals.  Most 
of the 'technical posts' have contained either nonsense or things that can 
be bypassed.  Other than 'GIEIS', there are no proposals even worth 
considering as EVERYTHING else can be bypassed.  I am not here just to 
inform you of 'GIEIS' but to point out the fact that it can't be solved in 
any other fashion.  Please post your solutions and I will demonstrate this 
for EVERY single one.

>
>
>>The 'frameworks' and 'solutions' that have appeared in this forum defy 
>>even common sense at times, let alone technical reasoning.  If you want a 
>>forum were businesses prevent the development of solutions, the the Asrg 
>>is becoming very close to it.  Almost everyone, including the current 
>>chair, has open conflicts of interest in regards to the issue of spam.
>
>There are over 800 people on the list, many of which have no connection to 
>spam and no conflicts. Do not draw conclusions from a small sample.

Mark's Response:

I am drawing my conclusions based upon what I seen and read here only.

>
>>In the past, Internet architecture has been an open affair for all to 
>>contribute too.  Due to the large sums of money now involved this practice 
>>will most likely be discontinued due to the conflicts of interest present.
>>
>>Honestly, do you really think no one would notice that 99% of postings 
>>made to this group are junk designed to keep the issue going??
>
>Speak for yourself. Although this group has its problems, the IRTF and IAB 
>are aware of them, and trying to fix them.

Mark's Response:

How long have these 'problems' been present for?

Mark McCarron.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:03 -0400

At 04:06 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
>>>>>>>will be no greylisting.  A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'.
>>>>>>
>>>>(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) and a draft is available. If 
>>>>you had been following the discussions for the last few days you would 
>>>>have seen that they are concentrated on that framework. If you do not 
>>>>wish to contribute to anything else than your own proposal, then create 
>>>>your own mailing list for its discussion and leave the group. This is 
>>>>what the author of the SPF proposal did.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark's Response:
>>>
>>non-sense then either start commenting on specific parts or LEAVE. We 
>>were chartered by the IRTF to create it and that's what we are doing. The 
>>IMPP WG also started with a model so its not an uncommon practice to 
>>start of with an abstract model and then go on to specific solutions.
>
>Mark's Response:
>
>just going around in circles.  I will start commenting on the proposals, 
>in fact, every last one.  I'll soon remove the nonsense that appears here.

We will be awaiting that.