Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Please note that the BoF scheduled for Korea, MARID, has a > very specific topic and that discussion of other spam-related > issues is not appropriate for that session. While I am _very_ sympathetic to the need to limit the discussion, I really don't see how anything useful can be accomplished if the chair rules "principles of spam-abatement" to be irrelevant. Regardless, "principles of spam-abatement" don't need to be _discussed_ at this BoF in order to "enlighten" it. Thus, if Ted meant to indicate such principles shouldn't be discussed here, I respectfully disagree. > At 3:59 PM -0500 02/26/2004, John Leslie wrote: >> I strongly recommend gathering some principles of spam-abatement to >> enlighten the spam BOF at IETF-59. (I'd be happy to edit such a >> document, but it might be better to chose someone who will attend >> IETF-59... >> >> Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because >>> it was categorized as spam back to the sender without adverse side >>> effects, then occasional false positives aren't much of a problem. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>