Re: [Asrg] Back to the charter

["Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com>]

> 
> The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined,
> and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent-
> based communications.  Let me first observe that based
> on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent-
> based communication isn't clear enough.
> 
> In engineering, when a problem seems intractable, it's certainly 
> a legitimate strategy to consider a different problem, as is 
> being done here.  But then, unless the original problems falls 
> out (as is frequently but not always the case), we must compare 
> the original problem to the problem being solved.
> 

I'm not sure that "consent-based communication" is a different problem.
I believe it will be a very powerful generalisation and should allow us
to discuss the key issues without getting bogged down in arguments
about content classification, free-speech, politics etc.

The charter directs us to consider "architecture" and "framework".
I don't believe that that we're seeking anti-spam systems per se, rather
that we're working towards a system that enables their development.


The generalisation should lead us to consider:
  The entities which grant and seek consent
  (are they recipients/senders or "autonomous systems"?  Both?
   The charter refers to "recipients" 
      - is a recipient an email address?
        a personal email address?
        the person behind a set of email addresses?
        a robot?
        an network / mail system ?
  )

  The nature of the communication
  (content? traffic characteristics? other stuff?)

I like the generalisation, let's work with it.


 




--
Regards,
Jon Kyme

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg