Re: [Asrg] RE: Directing ASRG Activity

[Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>]

At 10:34 AM 5/7/03 -0400, Paul Judge wrote:
>Yakov, 
>
>I appreciate your feedback and your interest in contributing.
>
>There are a number of work items being pursued and ideas that have been
>proposed. However, overall it is difficult to identify the productive
>conversations as a newcomer and also difficult to follow them from there. 
>
>I am very much aware of the guidelines in RFC 2014 and have been working
>diligently towards them including "ensuring the research group process and
>content management" as well as "moderating the research group email list".
>Please view the history of messages that I have posted on the mailing list
>and you will notice that I have set forth the work items of the ASRG and
>sought volunteers for each of these items. Some are actively being pursued
>while others are not. I also set forth a labeling technique to help people
>follow the different threads. Some participants used it while others decided
>not to comply. As far as flaming, in the past, I responded to such threads
>to the list to stop the debate. Recently, I have been responding to the
>involved parties off-list. Even in situations that are not flaming, but are
>individuals continuing to pursue unproductive conversation such as Dave
>Crocker's recent rants about RMX, I have held off-list conversations to move
>those debates off of the list until they turn productive. Recently, I began
>active moderation of certain participants using the mailing list software.
>The list of participants that are moderated in this manner will increase.
>Persons are not happy about being included on this list, however the
>productivity of this list is more important than my popularity on this list.
>The purpose of this group is to contribute to solving the spam problem. I
>realize that not everyone on this list has that as a priority; therefore, I
>will be more stringent in determining persons that are acting in a manner
>contrary to this goal and eliminate the negative effect that they have on
>this group. 
>

In my limited experience with other anti-spam groups, I've noticed
two dominant points of view, which I label "spam assassin" and 
"spammer assassin", though perhaps "anti-spam" and "anti-spammer"
would be more PC.

IMO, those two categories (anti-spam and anti-spammer) would be a
good first branch in any taxonomy.
Although there is of course overlap between the two, 
in general it's very difficult for those two 
philosophies to come to terms with each other.  
Statements like "the proposal wouldn't stop any spam" are viewed 
as irrelevant to one side, and a show stopper to the other.


I suggest that serious consideration
be given to the idea of splitting this into two research groups,
each working on the goals in context of those two schools of thought.


Just my $0.02

Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>

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