On a conceptual level, maximizing opportunity (uncertainty) to *scale* is the same as 
maximizing the Shannon entropy of the protocol in terms of the characteristic we want 
to *scale*.

The following thought can also be generalized to any protocol or aspect of the 
protocol, not just email or scale.

Some private discussions stimulated me to have a generalized thought which I 
personally felt is relevant (also profound, yet obvious) and important enough to share 
with the people who supposedly design some of the internet engineering in the STDs 
track.

Regarding the concept of a protocol's "ability to scale", as one of Dean's private 
criticisms of Iljitsch's request to revisit criticisms of the (probably very old) idea 
of forcing SMTP to accept email only from a SMTP server of DNS record for the domain 
in From header (I may have misstated the idea, but my thought herein still survives).

My thought is as result of any design to maximize scale entropy, that we expect (as 
predicted by Shannon's theories) that the channel has the propensity to generate a 
maximized amount of noise.

I think most of people would agree that spam is noise (that unsolicited is essentially 
noise).  My thought is on a conceptual level what my previous anti-spam proposal and 
what Iljitsch's idea (and probably all other protocol level anti-spam proposals) are 
attempting to do is to reduce the entropy (opportunities, i.e. uncertainties) of the 
email channel.

The benefits and costs (tradeoff analysis) within such a conceptual paradigm is what I 
leave here for thought stimulation.  I am not here to argue any point, merely to 
postulate the conceptual relationship.

Good luck.

I am resigning *again* from the list, so please do not send any response directly to 
me.  I can always "pull" the archives if I have desire/time to read followup posts in 
this thread.

Shelby Moore
http://AntiViotic.com

Dislaimer: I am posting this only in terms of sharing a thought (probably not even a 
new thought), just to stimulate thought (and perhaps some discussion).  So please do 
not feel obligated to add noise to this thread (and thus list), if your only purpose 
is to prove this was never thought of before.  If this is not interesting nor 
important topic to you, then please ignore it.   I have no interest in defending or 
nurturing this thought.  It is simply stated to stimulate (or not) depending on each 
individual reader.


Reply via email to