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

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> 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.

listing problems seems like a very constructive step.

another constructive step would be to list desirable criteria for potential
soultions or frameworks of solutions.  e.g.

- should minimize spam to some acceptable level (say, 0.1% of received
  messages)
- should not prevent delivery of legitimate mail
- should not adversely impact valuable functionality
- should be easy to use (even for grandma)
- should be easy to deploy, incrementally
- should not depend on universal deployment to be effective
- should provide incentives to deploy for those doing the deployment
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg