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

  • To: dcrocker@localhost
  • From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@localhost
  • Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 15:25:01 +0100
  • Cc: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" anti-spam-wg@localhost

Dave,

I can see your point, but we are, at least initially, attempting not
to set down incredibly strict limits on what we're looking at.  SMTP
abuse (in all its forms) will be a large part of what the group will
be concerned about, but it's also intended to cover the areas you've
touched on below as well as things like botnets (the creation and use
of,) and, indeed, types of abuse of which we are not now aware.  This
last is equally tricky, but I think we need to consider that the pace
change has not slowed of late and we could well be looking at new and
different abuse vectors over the next few years (months?!).

Hence my wish to try and outline broader areas we weren't going to
concern the WG with, rather than detailing all the areas that would
be important.


I didn't really mean to suggest "limits" as much as "clarifications". I believe that an outside reader will not know what "network level abuse" means, no matter what their background is. As a single-sample data point, I was/am offering myself...

And thank you for that input.  I do hope my response wasn't overly
negative.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an "outside reader,"
but further work will certainly be going into clarifying things as
much as possible.

Thinking a bit about your last paragraph, above, it seems that keeping examples of what is out of scope would also be helpful.

It's a thin line of course, but I have a few ideas as to how we
can progress that I will be putting down on electrons over the
weekend, hopefully leaving plenty of time for discussion before
Thursday.

Anyhow, all of this is merely early morning heckling from a distant sideline...

And again, very welcome it is too!

Thanks,

Brian.