Re: [anti-spam-wg] Re: (MAAWG comment on) RIPE anti-abuse draft

Nigel Titley wrote:
So I still propose that the update goes ahead, with very little additional
change from the annotated draft at

I would agree with Rodney, that the annotated draft goes ahead, with more
substantial work reserved for the major update to take place at some time in
the future.

A common model, for dealing with the kind of disparity the Cox response suggests -- between current RIPE text and what Cox is worried about -- is to do exactly what Rodney suggests: Document the existing world now, and later work on producing an enhanced document.

What has struck me is that there seem to be quite a few different groups trying to produce documents covering roughly the same topic. (For example, Sender Practises.)

I certainly do not suggest that any of them stop what they are doing.

However it might be interesting to try to have a collaboration among core contributors from each of the different groups, to see whether a combined document is possible.

First, the exercise might show some strong overlaps, and I suspect it would be helpful to everyone to see that documented.

Second, it might produce a single document that would be supported by a broad range of groups, thereby imparting that much more moral force for the document.



  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking