Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy -- Where would CHANNELS fit into the Tax onomy ?

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:07:31 -0400

> 
>        1 (a) (i) (2) b Token supported
> 
> since CHANNEL seems to be a token.

This is correct. This is exactly what is meant by this category. TDMA also
has similar capabilities.

> Also the channel system gives us some ability to track where 
> a spammer has gotten the address from since any given CHANNEL 
> is legitimately known to very few (often just one) person.
> 
> 
> I don't know where systems in general that track 
> accountability (much like contagion) would fit into the taxonomy.

Can you give me some examples here?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:55:52 -0700

I spoke to the developers at some length today.

They feel that the system isn't really very much like a white list
since white lists connote lists of senders and the ZoEmail/CHANNEL
system isn't looking at the sender/from/reply-to fields at all.

Any given CHANNEL is usable by anyone that the correspondent who knows
that channel tells it to.  (Much like a "capability" in the operating
systems sense of the word.)

They also tell me that since they can track who leaked a channel to a
spanner that ZoEmail/CHANNEL approach also provides significant
deterrents.

From this they argue that should be a (1)(c) category for system which
do both prevent and deterrents in an inseparable way.

/Russell