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

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:08:09 +0000

This post relates to the 'GIEIS' system.  The release version is 0.005 and 
details job creations of up to 2.26 Million.  The 'GIEIS' system can be 
viewed here:

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 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???

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.

>
>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.

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.

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??

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

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

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

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400

At 03:08 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
>....
>>>>>The consent framework will consist of white and black lists.  There 
>>>>>will be no greylisting.  A complete opt-out will be allowed by 'GIEIS'.
>>>>
>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.

>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.

>>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:
>
>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.

>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.

>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.

-------
".... when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her .... but 
when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and 
looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it 
flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either 
a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with 
curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in 
time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge. In another 
moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world 
she was to get out again. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel 
for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not 
a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling 
down a very deep well ....."
--------

---

From: "Mark McCarron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:19:15 +0000

>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:10:03 -0400
>
>At 04:06 PM 7/6/2003 +0000, Mark McCarron wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:43:57 -0400
>>>
>>>>>(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:
>>>>
>>>>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???
>>>
>>>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.
>
>We will be awaiting that.
>

Mark's Response:

Good.  Looking forward to it!

Mark McCarron.

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:30:43 -0700

> 'GIEIS' is well legally protected.  Just because the system 
> is discussed 
> here, does not mean it gives away any rights. 

You are rasing the system for discussion, in doing so you are
agreeing to be bound by the IPR conditions of the forum.

If you do not want to relinquish the rights to the scheme I
suggest you take competent legal advice before you discuss
it here.

A Google search on the term "intellectual copyright" does not
produce any meaningful definition, though it does link to a 
lot of pages of cranks.

		Phill