> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > So I'll repeat myself: let's have an anti-spam BOF
Face to face talk is likely to be of even lower quality than this thread. With email with a broad audience like this, people can squelch obvious nonsense with data or pointers to real data and independent reports. (e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=spammer+%22dictionary+attack%22 ) BOFs are transient committees and so are even worse than most committees for creating things. All you might do in a BOF is discover whether anyone is interested is dealing with spam. > and hopefully and > anti-spam wg. First order of business for this wg: analyze the spam > problem and then see if mechanisms can be found to reduce the amount of > spam by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude. After that, we can decide if it's > worth it to write a protocol and try to have it deployed. That sounds more like research than protocol documentation and standardization. Why have you rejected the repeated pointers to the IRTF/IETF ASRG research group? In case you didn't intend to reject them but just missed them, please consider: http://irtf.org/ http://irtf.org/groups.html http://irtf.org/charters/asrg.html https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/maillist.html or http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Major+Internet+Standards%22+spam Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
