Subject: RE: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversit y and scenarios

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:22:03 -0700

> Phillip,
> 
> HBP> This working group is charged with a purpose, to stop spam.
> HBP> It is not charged with stopping spam by method X.
> 
> You keep citing that as if it meant that the group can and should
> consider anything it wants to.  As if, for example, this group would
> be a reasonable venue for formulating legislation.  After all, some
> people think that will "stop spam".

If someone could make a reasonable case that legislation would work
to the extent that no technical measures were required then bring
it on. 

> HBP> Like many others in the IETF you appear to have the idea that
> HBP> it is somehow your position to impart your learned experience
> 
> Good job.  Slam the IETF and me at the same time.

Stop hiding behind the IETF. It is commonly accepted that the IETF
is an open forum and all manner of undesirables appear as a result.

People with an overblown sense of self importance being a major 
category of problem in my view. If you seriously believe that your
achievements are such that you can talk down to anyone in the IETF
at all then that is your problem. I don't think that there are
many who hold the same assesment of your abilities.

> Presumably you are not making up your assertions of fact,

Actually as has been repeatedly pointed out, YOU made the assertion
of fact and the onus of proof is on YOU. I rebutted the assertion
with considerably more evidence to support my case than you have 
provided.

All you have done is to engage in ad hominem attacks.

> Presumably you are participating in this open exchange
> with the intent of constructive dialogue?

Pot, kettle, black.

> Presumably you are offering to produce the draft of that "FAQ"? It
> sounds like it might be useful.

Actually as several who have been in this group some time know
I have already circulated one draft of such a scoping paper. I
am currently getting approval for the second.

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:32:35 -0700

Phillip,

>> Good job.  Slam the IETF and me at the same time.

HBP> Stop hiding behind the IETF.

Wow.

You keep raising the IETF reference. I keep pointing out how
inappropriate and unproductive your raising it is. And then you claim
that *I* am hiding behind it???

Oh, by the way. Perhaps you have missed the organizational affiliation
of the IRTF? If you detest this particular community so much that you
must constantly remind us of your displeasure, how can you be
productive?

HBP> If you seriously believe that your
HBP> achievements are such that you can talk down to anyone in the IETF
HBP> at all then that is your problem.

I am extremely sorry that you took my request as an arrogant, personal
attack. It certainly was not intended.

1. In response to my citing the classic core/edge distinction, along
with some example of its implication, you posted:

HBP> It is empirically easier to deploy changes at servers than in mail clients.

2. I posted:

DC> No doubt you have empirical data to substantiate your empirical
DC> assertion.

DC> So, please cite some major enhancement to an Internet-scale,
DC> Internet-diversity, existing service, that could have been done either
DC> in an edge fashion or a core fashion, that went quickly (or at all)
DC> through core deployment, rather than edge.

3. You posted:

HBP> Fifteen years of trying to deploy PKI through the edge model.

You cite some more failures, and then you asked:

HBP> Need more proof?

although nothing in your note was in any way a proof relevant to the
question I asked.

4. So, I posted:

DC> Forgive me, but as I noted later in my query, I was asking for you to
DC> cite a *success*. Making definitive statements about what will succeed,
DC> based on a track record of failure, is not very convincing.

and I provided a review of the question I had posed that you had not
yet responded to.

And that's where we remain...

So please provide some guidance about the proper way to ask you for
substantiation to claims you make. I certainly would prefer to pursue
the topic of this group than to engage in these distracting
excursions. So it might help to know what discourse style you are not
so sensitive to.

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>