Subject: [Asrg] Consent

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:42:10 -0500

>> There was some more fundamental (but probably premature)
>discussion of "consent" early in the life this group.

> The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's HTML 
blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. 

I think that my approach, with sender/recipient-pair-based permissions list and 
a (perhaps multi-stage) transition strategy as I suggested would clearly make a 
big reduction in spam volume (bytes at least), and the system is simple enough 
that users could understand and deal with it.

I think it's a big bonus that it (the SAME mechanism) also would take a big 
chunk out of viruses/worms/trojans (and I spent the last half of today 
disinfecting three systems at one of my consulting clients... all three systems 
had multiple infections of Bugbear and Klez... several variants of each).  

I also like the fact that my approach doesn't require a global consensus or even 
a "standard" for how to implement it.  It can be implemented on an ISP-by-ISP 
basis incrementally.

> If discussion of consent is premature at the moment, 

Why would it be "premature" if in fact it is the MOST practical, the MOST 
effective, the MOST implementable and the MOST comprehensible of the proposals 
we've been discussing?

> what should we be looking at right now? 

I think we should be looking at (1) finding ISPs interested in pursuing 
implementation of early prototypes of these systems, and (2) discussing the idea 
with Microsoft and AOL and Netscape, as those three companies have the most to 
do with the defaulting to sending bulky HTML-burdened E-mail.

> In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment? As 
it appears rights now, there are mainly various discussions about 
everything under the sun, but no concrete sense of direction at all.

*I* certainly have a sense of direction.

But again, we can *expect* that getting concurrence is going to be like herding 
cats... that's precisely why I feel we *must* have a scheme which can be 
implemented WITHOUT requiring standards or global consensus.  I just don't think 
we should expect to have that.

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

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

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:18:32 -0400

>a "standard" for how to implement it.  It can be implemented on an ISP-by-ISP

There have been many approaches discussed in the group. My problem is that 
all of these approaches can be fit into a general framework of either 
network abuse model or consent model, and would make it easier to deal with 
all of them since many common features would stand out and can be compared 
easier. I would like to define these frameworks as per charter, and then 
see how different anti-spam approaches including yours will fit in and 
compare them.

Yakov