Re: False positives (was Re: [Asrg] Re: RMX Records)

[Nate W <asrg@natew.com>]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Alan DeKok wrote:

> Some ad-hoc and naive solutions may work, if you're not receiving
> appreciable amounts of spam.  They may even work if you have money to
> throw at the problem. But they don't scale.  They're not permanent
> solutions.  And until we have a clear description/understanding of the
> problem, it's a waste of time to talk about specific solutions.

Maybe it would help to look at separate problems and their separate
solutions?

For example, the problem of identifying senders as real-life individuals,
the problem of bandwidth consumption, the problem of recipient's wasted
time, the problem of expressing (or inferring) consent (or lack thereof),
and so on.

This might keep discussion a bit more focused, like "X solves the N
problem, but should not be considered relevant to the M problem."  At
least people wouldn't be compelled to explain "X doesn't solve M" when it
was never meant to.

-- 

Nate Waddoups
Redmond WA USA
http://www.natew.com


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg