[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!)
Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> Chris Lewis wrote:
>>> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>>> What I'm arguing (and I've argued this elsewhere) is that it's not
>>>> the role of end users to set anti-spam policy (in whole or in part)
>>>> any more than it's their role to set firewall policy. It's not
>>>> their
>>>> job, and they're terrible at it.
>>> I don't think many would argue against that.
>> I would, for one.
> I would too. The defining characteristic of objectionable email
> is that recipients find it objectionable. ISPs block mail that
> recipients find objectionable or (much more rarely) causes
> them operational problems.
>
> So, by that definition, recipients drive mail filtering policy.
I should mention that the conversation that Rich and I were having had a
context that may have been From asrg-bounces at irtf.org Mon Dec 15 10:59:25 2008
Return-Path: <asrg-bounces at irtf.org>
X-Original-To: asrg-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-asrg-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E76A28C10C;
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:59:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: asrg at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F3928C10C
for <asrg at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:59:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 8S+6PDAS88DB for <asrg at core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com (zrtps0kn.nortel.com [47.140.192.55])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E4A28C102
for <asrg at irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com
[47.140.202.46])
by zrtps0kn.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id
mBFIxDn11159 for <asrg at irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:59:13 GMT
Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by
zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:59:13 -0500
Received: from [47.129.150.171] (47.129.150.171) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com
(47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.311.2;
Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:59:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4946A8FF.5080207 at nortel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:59:11 -0500
From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis at nortel.com>
Organization: Nortel
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg at irtf.org>
References: <20081203143108.GA4549 at gsp.org> <C55CAC11.B19E%jdfalk at returnpath.net> <20081204115037.GA22266 at gsp.org> <20081204152859.A5D3D24238 at panix5.panix.com> <493802E7.8080306 at nortel.com> <20081214202430.GF9303 at gsp.org> <49458900.8010602 at nortel.com>
<49463FF6.3000507 at tana.it>
<E45276A7-099F-4D88-8E32-05B7D284832B at blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <E45276A7-099F-4D88-8E32-05B7D284832B at blighty.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2008 18:59:13.0239 (UTC)
FILETIME=[38560E70:01C95EE7]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!)
X-BeenThere: asrg at irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg at irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg at irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>,
<mailto:asrg-request at irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-bounces at irtf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces at irtf.org
Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> Chris Lewis wrote:
>>> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>>> What I'm arguing (and I've argued this elsewhere) is that it's not
>>>> the role of end users to set anti-spam policy (in whole or in part)
>>>> any more than it's their role to set firewall policy. It's not
>>>> their
>>>> job, and they're terrible at it.
>>> I don't think many would argue against that.
>> I would, for one.
> I would too. The defining characteristic of objectionable email
> is that recipients find it objectionable. ISPs block mail that
> recipients find objectionable or (much more rarely) causes
> them operational problems.
>
> So, by that definition, recipients drive mail filtering policy.
I should mention that the conversation that Rich and I were having had a
context that may have been lost or lost or missed along the way - in that we
were talking about corporate, not ISP filters. Secondly, by "set
policy", I take that to mean not only cross-the-board policy for an
_entire_ receiver population, but _setting_ it. That is a radically
different thing than "guide", "drive" or "influence" policy for the
entire population or for individual receivers.
> (anti-spam policy is a very vague and broad term, I'm assuming
> Rich is talking about inbound mail filtering).
Right: corporate, inbound, cross-the-board.
That in no way prevents an ISP (or corporate) choosing to allow users to
set policy for themselves.
Few ISPs or corporates would be crazy enough to allow their users to
diddle the server-level knobs directly. That is what I think Rich was
speaking to, and what I was.
Because if you do, bad things happen.
> That some people are using the tiny, biased samples they
> have of the data to drive a broad argument based on the
> accuracy of the whole population isn't very surprising either,
> but it is a bit of a disappointment that that basic flaw is being
> displayed in a research group.
Cuts both ways ;-)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
missed along the way - in that we
were talking about corporate, not ISP filters. Secondly, by "set
policy", I take that to mean not only cross-the-board policy for an
_entire_ receiver population, but _setting_ it. That is a radically
different thing than "guide", "drive" or "influence" policy for the
entire population or for individual receivers.
> (anti-spam policy is a very vague and broad term, I'm assuming
> Rich is talking about inbound mail filtering).
Right: corporate, inbound, cross-the-board.
That in no way prevents an ISP (or corporate) choosing to allow users to
set policy for themselves.
Few ISPs or corporates would be crazy enough to allow their users to
diddle the server-level knobs directly. That is what I think Rich was
speaking to, and what I was.
Because if you do, bad things happen.
> That some people are using the tiny, biased samples they
> have of the data to drive a broad argument based on the
> accuracy of the whole population isn't very surprising either,
> but it is a bit of a disappointment that that basic flaw is being
> displayed in a research group.
Cuts both ways ;-)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg