Subject: RE: [Asrg] Economic methods for controlling spam (was [Yet anothe r] article on spam)

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:27:24 -0400

On Friday, May 23, 2003 4:10 PM, Paul Judge [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:20 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [Asrg] Economic methods for controlling spam (was
> > [Yet another] article on spam)
> >
> >
> > At 06:13 AM 5/23/2003 +0900, Shannon Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > >However, with email we have the potential to do much better if we
> > >devise the proper economic model. Right now the spammers are
> > forcing us to spend additional money handling their spam. More machines for 
> > >filtering.
8<...>8
> > Perhaps we can start a discussion about the economic models
> > of spam control and various systems possible. Below is a quote
> > from section  1.7. of Dave Crocker's draft on spam control
> > mechanims
 (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-01.txt)
> ,
> >we can start off discussion with this:
>
8<...>8
> One such system was presented at the ASRG meeting at IETF 56. The system is
> called SHRED:  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/asrg-8.pdf. If
> we are going to start a dicussion about cost-based systems, then we should
> start we the thought that has been put into this proposal.

I agree.

> According to our taxonomy, these approaches can be considered a form of
> consent token or a response of charging after spam detection depending on
> the use.

Which is why I am forwarding this suggestion.  It may also be appropriate to 
explore the synergism of 'filtering' and such a system.

Of course that would be apropos of the Filtering draft.

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