Subject: [Asrg] defining the ASRG (was Re: draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal))

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:09:20 -0600

Steve Atkins wrote:

> (A problem that's usually best solved by killfiling anyone participating
> in that sort of thread).

If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing the 
purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was in there 
somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on -- and none likely to 
occur.

So, what's this group for?  Why are we all participating in it?

-- 
J.D. Falk

---

From: Ian Eiloart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:56:40 +0100

--On 1 July 2009 13:09:20 -0600 "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on -- and none likely
> to occur.
>

I joined because I thought I'd learn about research related to spam.  I 
stay because it turns out to be a good place to discuss issues relating to 
spam, even though it turns out that there's little actual research. Perhaps 
there are other fora that might be more suitable.

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Jul 2009 14:13:49 -0000

>If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing
>the purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was
>in there somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on --
>and none likely to occur.

As far as I can tell, based on the papers at CEAS, there's precious
little spam-related research going on anywhere.

If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that they
do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

Perhaps I should make it so that whenever you update the wiki (where
we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques and
even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows
you to send one message.

R's,
John

---

From: Ian Eiloart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:34:47 +0100

--On 2 July 2009 14:13:49 +0000 John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that
> they do into arguing, we might have some actual research.
>
> we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques

<http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Taxonomy_of_anti-spam_techniques>

> and
> even more slowly of spamming techniques)

<http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Taxonomy_of_spamming_techniques>

"this is a place holder until some real content can be added" lol!

> you get a credit that allows
> you to send one message.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Danny Angus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:46:30 +0100

> do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

Amen.

> even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows

+1

d.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:10:41 +0200

> do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

By translating arguing into the collective refinement of concepts on 
this list, and research into the consolidation of any discussion 
results in the wiki, the above statement may become an operative recipe.

> even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows

The opposite resolution, to grant write access to the wiki to whoever 
posts one message, might also increase research in the above sense.