John, JL> While I am _very_ sympathetic to the need to limit the discussion, JL> I really don't see how anything useful can be accomplished if the JL> chair rules "principles of spam-abatement" to be irrelevant. It is a small matter of seeking to have a productive meeting. Discussion about the definition of spam or other broad topics, such as principles of abatement are certainly important, but they also suffer from a) taking a long time, and b) tending not to converge on a rough consensus agreement. By contract, discussion of specific techniques can be very efficient. This falls under the category of "I may not know much about spam, but I know what spam control mechanisms I like". Yes, there are weaknesses in this approach, but they aren't as bad as wasting an entire BOF debating philosophy. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>