Re: Proposed Charter for Anti-Spam WG - DRAFT
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:04:26 +0200 (MET DST)
>From owner-anti-spam@localhost Wed Apr 29 11:48:22 1998
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:43:44 +0200
>To: anti-spam@localhost, ncc@localhost, k13@localhost
>From: John Martin martin@localhost
>Message-Id: <v03110709b16c9c8e9d59@[192.87.30.41]>
> ...
>1. A one-sentance definition of SPAM for the "Aim" section. (I dont
>like the
> one I've written myself.) Gunnar - have you something for this -
>or can I
> plagarise your draft for something? :-)
I don't have anything from the top of my head, but I'll come back
if it pops up. draft-lindberg-anti-spam-mta-03.txt is in the IETF
archives now - there are 6 "Background" and 4 "Security
Considerations" bullets, be my guest :-).
>2. Is the sentance about abuse of "relays" too specific? Should
>it be left
>out?
> (This probably depends on the above sentance.)
Paul Hoffman at the Internet Mail Consortium pointed out that
control/authorization of Mail Relay is not in itself enough to
make spam disappear.
He and I disagree slightly on the quantification, but it's quite
clear that either spammers will locate the few Relay open mailers
there are left, or/and they will eventually find other ways, e.g.
sending directly from real dialup accounts and move to the next
ISP when one such account gets closed due to sending spam.
If we are to win this war, we must take this into account and find
ways to deal with such users - still within business principles
and personal privacy, but nevertheless deal with them and even do
so between ISPs.
>3. Some help on the "European Centre for Network Abuse" paragraph.
If we could only come up with a better name... Depending on how my
morning was, I can read that in 2 different ways - and Spamford
@Europe.CyberPromo could definately be a member in one of them...
Maybe "s/for/against/"?
Gunnar
