On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:14:33 PDT, NM Research <nm_research@yahoo.com> said: > Please qualify your false statement I would appreciate - what was A-net all > about. IETF is a powerful mover, just as it spoke against spamming. Without > IETF prodding nothing would ever happen. As far as I know, the IETF hasn't said anything more helpful than "Spam is Bad", and most of the anti-spamming work done so far has been totally outside the IETF (and, in fact, quite often totally contrary to the requirements in RFC2821/2822). I don't think it's been the IETF speaking about spamming, so much as the fact that the service providers are tired of having to handle anywhere from 1M (our mail server) to 2B (MSN/Hotmail) spams inbound per day. And if the IETF *has* done something substantiative, it certainly hasn't done anything to the actual amount of spam. When people have seen even a 10% drop in spam in-transit per month for 3 months straight, *then* I'll accept that something is actually working. And John Strack was right on the nuclear warfare thing too: http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml says: (footnote 5) "It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks."
Attachment:
pgp00284.pgp
Description: PGP signature