At:
http://www.killerbees.co.uk/draft-irtf-asrg-criteria-00.html
You will find a document which outlines an idea I've had for a while.
The thrust of the document is that while we don't know what the silver
bullet solution for spam is we do know some of the characteristics
which we expect it to exhibit.
We also know that very many ideas are presented on the asrg@ietf.org list which
fail to meet one or more of those criteria, this draft is intended to
provide a reference which describes those criteria, and could be used
as a partial statement of requirements for a technique to solve the
problem of spam.
Obviously this is just my own 2c at the moment, so let me know, preferably on the asrg list) what
your opinions are and I'll modify, abandon or replace this as
necessary.
FYI the abstract reads:
"The Internet Research Task Force Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) is
frequently presented with proposals for techniques for managing spam
from authors who wish to elicit an expert critique of their
proposals. In many cases proposals fall foul of issues and risks
which are well known and understood by members of the ASRG. This
Internet Draft is intended to enumerate and explain a number of the
more important of the criteria which tend to be applied. This
document will then serve as a normative checklist for anyone wishing
to present a technique to the ASRG."
Danny Angus
blog.killerbees.co.uk
Labels
Passim
-
▼
2007
(174)
-
▼
January
(23)
- ApacheconEU07
- The past is another country; but you can see it fr...
- Criteria for judging proposed "solutions" to the p...
- Is spam going to kill SMTP?
- jSPF passes all the tests
- Mailet API getting some independance
- 123 - I love you
- Consumer hell
- Batman!
- labels and post by email
- USB Turntable
- .. and finally ... how I got it all together (or w...
- Demolition III
- ... From my phone, at last!
- blog by mail from my mobile
- New address same old nonsense
- Mailet Annotations - Proof of concept.
- VERP, Mailet, and James
- More Uninformative Exceptions (in the sense of mo...
- I want a phoney Phd
- ClassCastException - why so coy?
- Did I ever do that? How about searchable commit me...
- Apache James at Apachecon EU 2007 ?
-
▼
January
(23)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Criteria for judging proposed "solutions" to the problem of spam
Further Reading
-
Internet Archive loses their CDL appeal - The Internet Archive's Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) lends out scans of physical books, ensuring that each scan is lent to one person at a time. Publi...5 weeks ago
-
[ANNOUNCE] Apache NetBeans 18 Released - The Apache NetBeans team is pleased to announce that Apache NetBeans 18 was released on May 30, 2023. What's in the Apache NetBeans 18 release: https://...1 year ago
-
The Security Failures of Online Exam Proctoring - Proctoring an online exam is hard. It’s hard to be sure that the student isn’t cheating, maybe by having reference materials at hand, or maybe by substit...3 years ago
-
ApacheCon@Home 2020 - Myrle Krantz has added a photo to the pool: [image: ApacheCon@Home 2020]4 years ago
-
-
GTID implementation - Oracle vs MariaDB - Oracle MySQL has implemented GTID differently from MariaDB; this article walks through some of the key differences. Before we look at the details, let’s ...5 years ago
-
ApacheCon Seville 2016 – Building a Container Solution on Top of Apache CloudStack- Steve Roles - Building a Container Solution on Top of Apache CloudStack- Steve Roles Cloud native applications running in containerised environments look set to create a...7 years ago
-
Nóirín Plunkett - https://www.flickr.com/photos/robertburrelldonkin/5729816462 smiles and socks retreating in co. wicklow now empty whiskey and secrets bar camping in ox...9 years ago
-
Hello world! - Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!9 years ago
-
Debugging MySQL Slow Queries With Many Joins - This week I encountered an issue that I hadn’t seen in a while. The ORM in a CMS project that I work on automatically joins to many subclass tables, causin...11 years ago
-
You’re invited to help us celebrate an unlikely pairing in open source - We are just days away from reaching a significant milestone for our team and the open source and open standards communities: the first anniversary of Micro...11 years ago
-
Boat For Sale - Boat For Sale: Price: £150 Terms and Conditions Oracle reserve the right to alter the web price of this acticle even after purchase. Price does n...17 years ago
-
-
-
-
I know nothing, I'm not a fortune teller, and you'd be insane to think that I am. This disclaimer was cribbed from an email footer I once received. It is so ridiculous I had to have it for myself.
Statements in this blog that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements including, without limitation, statements regarding my expectations, objectives, anticipations, plans, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward looking statements include risks and uncertainties such as any unforeseen event or any unforeseen system failures, and other risks. It is important to note that actual outcomes could differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements.
Danny Angus Copyright © 2006-2013 (OMG that's seven years of this nonsense)
Comments:
A typo?
"Proposed Technique SHOULD have A net costs which reduce..."
Looks like this "A" does not belong here. Or maybe I'm wrong (not a native English sp.)
Another typo (section 2.3.9):
"operators trying to achieve the benefits of the Proposed Technique and not through compulsion or altuism"
should have been "altRuism" I guess.
Oops, thanks.
I know it's not appropriate as part of the document itself, but could you give some examples of the trust systems that you mention in the document? I'm aware of many of the identity systems, but I'm not aware of any trust systems that are in use.
Dave...
I'm thinking about the trust provided by commercial "root CA" organisations like verisign and thawte, and about the peer trust provided by things like pgp, also the notion of non commercial trust relationships such as might be facilitated by organisations like apache by signing keys as a non commercial root for people who they "know". To a lesser extent governments might also choose to take a role in this verification of identity.
You have to remember that we use one certificate, but it has two purposes the obvious one is encryption, the less well understood is (via the signing of the keys) a chain of trust.
These processes of identity verification are already well supported by technology, no anti-spam solution needs to confuse the issue by re-inventing this.