Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Technical Considerations (updated draft)

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:05:58 -0400

An updated draft of "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms" 
has been posted to the IETF Internet Drafts directory. It can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt 

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

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:17:51 -0400

The following information is essential for any proposal that seeks to 
replace the SMTP protocol and/or the email infrastructure of the Internet. 
This is a quote taken from section 4.1 of 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt), 
emphasis added:

-----snip----
"A key construct to examination of adoption and benefit is 
"core-vs-edge".  Generally, adoption at the edge of a system is easier and 
quicker than adoption in the core. If a mechanism affects the core 
(infrastructure) then it usually must be adopted by most or all of the 
infrastructure before it provides meaningful utility. IN SOMETHING THE 
SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE DECADES TO REACH THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, 
IF IT EVER DOES.

Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number of independent 
administrations, each with their own politics and funding. What is 
important and feasible to one might be neither to another. If the latter 
administration is in the handling path for a message, then it will not have 
implemented the necessary control mechanism. Worse, it well might not be 
possible to change this.  FOR EXAMPLE A PROPOSAL THAT REQUIRES A BRAND NEW 
MAIL SERVICE IS NOT LIKELY TO GAIN MUCH TRACTION.

By contrast, some "edge" mechanisms provide utility to the first one, two 
or three adopters who interact with each other. No one else is needed for 
the adopters to gain some benefit. Each additional adopter makes the total 
system incrementally more useful. For example a filter can be useful to the 
first recipient to adopt it. A consent mechanism can be useful to the first 
two or three adopters, depending upon the design of the mechanism."

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:10:26 +0200

Yakov,

YS> An updated draft of "Technical Considerations for Spam Control Mechanisms"
YS> has been posted to the IETF Internet Drafts directory. It can be found at:

YS> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt

Thanks for posting a notice about the revision.

The revisions are substantial, including reorganization of the sections.

The document is intended to help two activities:

1. Develop a standard vocabulary and framework for talking about
proposed solutions, and

2. Develop a means of evaluating proposals.

The chart at the appendix is specifically intended for goal #2.  It
would be really excellent for folks to try to use it, for evaluating
various proposals, and then comment on the exercise.

First, it might actually help us do better evaluations.

Seonc, it definitely will help us understand how to improve the
evaluation guidelines.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>