J. Noel Chiappa wrote: > > 'anti-spam' is the wrong focus. Spam is a social problem, not an > > engineering one. > > Sorry, I don't agree with this logic: if it's valid, then why > try to design better locks, since theft is a social problem? You actually make my point since locks don't prevent theft, they simply slow the perpetrator and provide an indication to everyone that there is an attempt to keep things behind the lock private. The point is the IETF can't solve a social issue, but can provide a technology that may deter some, though primarily allows the social management infrastructure to take action. The IETF can build a technology (for the sake of discussion 'authenticated email'), that in turn can be a building block in the social management attempt to control spam. By itself it will not prevent receiving unwanted mail. Using it rather than the solicitation, merchandizing, & titillation protocol is an indication that the mailbox owner has an expectation of exercising controls. If we required the new messaging system to accurately include the time at every hop (something as simple as make NTP part of the implementation set), the basis for legal records can be established. Couple the basic authenticated, time-stamped message with existing or enhanced spam reporting mechanisms, and the foundation for actionable social recourse is taking shape. Are there other reasons for having authenticated, time-stamped email? I am sure there are many, but the first I would like to see is the end to the designation that a fax is acceptable legal evidence, while email is not. Will an 'anti-spam' focused IETF wg provide that? Maybe by accident, but not likely. Will an 'authenticated email' wg produce an end to spam? Not initially, but like the lock, the result is a technology that enables the social management sphere to accomplish the greater goal. Tony