![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The reason that there is no consensus in the spam area is that most
proposed "solutions" are claiming to solve the whole problem (or at least a big chunk of it) but are grossly overstating their applicability. To some degree this is because people want to have
the prize of creating _the_ anti-spam solution, which is counterproductive.
You are absolutely right here.
The problem is at least made worse by the fact that the first thing that happens when a focussed proposal is made people start saying 'That is no good, the [bad guys] will just do X'.
yes. even if you state the limitations of your proposal, people who are looking for a magic bullet that will save us from all spam will point out that your proposal is not a magic bullet.
And if you do attempt to advance a comprehensive strategy such as accountability you get the standard agenda denial tactics.
I think of this as "damage control mode". even a proposal that attempts to be comprehensive will miss some things. if people see it as a threat to be defended against (because it is not perfect) rather than a tentative proposal that can be improved, they will go into "damage control mode" and try to kill the proposal.
If we instead look at each of the proposals and say "what does this do well, and what does it not do well", then modify the proposals so that they can work well together (and to get rid of the harm that several of the proposals would do to the email system
if widely adopted), then we will be able to identify the missing pieces.
Somehow the statement 'we will not design an X' gets turned into 'we will not even talk to the Xs that are already designed and deployed'.
Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.