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'.
yes. even if you state the limitations of your proposal, people who are
looking for a magic bullet that will save us from all spam will point
out that your proposal is not a magic bullet.
And if you do attempt to advance a comprehensive strategy such as
accountability you get the standard agenda denial tactics.
I think of this as "damage control mode". even a proposal that attempts
to be comprehensive will miss some things. if people see it as a threat
to be defended against (because it is not perfect) rather than a
tentative proposal that can be improved, they will go into "damage
control mode" and try to kill the proposal.
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'.
Unfortunately, just because something is designed and deployed doesn't
mean it works well to solve any particular problem. Particularly in the
area of spam prevention people are so desperate that they'll try
anything whether it makes good sense or not.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf