> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > The reason that there is no consensus in the spam area is that most > proposed "solutions" are claiming to solve the whole problem (or at > least a big chunk of it) but are grossly overstating their > applicability. To some degree this is because people want to > have the > prize of creating _the_ anti-spam solution, which is > counterproductive. You are absolutely right here. The problem is at least made worse by the fact that the first thing that happens when a focussed proposal is made people start saying 'That is no good, the [bad guys] will just do X'. And if you do attempt to advance a comprehensive strategy such as accountability you get the standard agenda denial tactics. > If we instead look at each of the proposals and say "what does this do > well, and what does it not do well", then modify the proposals so that > they can work well together (and to get rid of the harm that several of > the proposals would do to the email system if widely adopted), then we > will be able to identify the missing pieces. Somehow the statement 'we will not design an X' gets turned into 'we will not even talk to the Xs that are already designed and deployed'. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf