Re: [anti-spam-wg] Proposed New Charter

  • To: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" anti-spam-wg@localhost
  • From: "Jeffrey Race" jrace@localhost
  • Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:05:54 +0700
  • Priority: Normal

 <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt>
   based on
 <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>


[emitting spam is a surefire index of rotten corporate security]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:57:12 +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:>Peter/Patrik,>
>>>> Please do let Richard and I know any queries, suggestions or
>>>> general feedback you may have on the text below.
>>>>
>>>> The WG procedures would not be changed by this change in focus.
>>> .SE has given e-mail a lot of thought recently. Anti Network Abuse is
>>> such a huge area to work with, and there is now a tendency to not
>>> focus on e-mail as such at all. So this might be another step to the
>>> death of e-mail. Remember Usenet News?
>>>
>>> I believe that there should be a focus on trustworthy (more secure,
>>> robust, whatever) e-mail somewhere, but all I see is more focus on the
>>> wider issue on spam (on web, wikis and forums), trojans and
>>> botnets. There is the risk that we lose e-mail in the confusion.
>>>
>> 
>> I fully support Patrik's view.
>> 
>> It's better to stay in focus of a well-known problem then 
>> trying to solve the more general problem of network-related abuse. 
>> 
>> Expanding the focus might even ( i'm speculating here) involve the 
>> agenda of RIAA and then shureley consensus would go down the drain.
>> 
>> Keep the anti-spam-wg as an spam-fighting group. Let other interests 
>> start their own group.
>
>The fear that e-mail abuse may be "lost in the noise" is one that has
>been in previous discussions on this topic and I can only say the same
>thing that has been said previously, that spam is still one of the
>most obvious and prevelant forms of network abuse, however it is
>becoming harder and harder to consider the spam issue without looking
>at some of the root causes, which brings us to the wider issue of
>network abuse.  In addition there are ways in which the network is
>being abused that were not there when the WG was set-up, so it seems
>very much like a natural evolution.  Also, having a separate working
>group for botnets etc. etc. really isn't going to scale.
>
>One of the comments that has been made elsewhere is a requirement to
>state that we are talking here about network-*level* abuse, so we
>would not be talking about cybersquatting or the hosting of illegal
>content.  It was never intended that the charter/WG address such
>issues, but I will be aiming to state it specifically in the
>proposed charter.
>
>Brian.
>
>
>
>-- 
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG. 
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date: 4/27/2008 9:39 AM
>