Please count me on the mailing list. The concept is interesting. Eduardo Mendez 2005/10/16, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx>: > I consider working on a Draft on "meta-spam" and would be interested > in comments and in interests to participate to a preparatory mailing > list. I define meta-spam as: > > "sending non approved information within regular protocols, headers, > contents, etc. for a further results unexpected by the receiver". > > This definition is most probably to edit. May be I just rising here a > well known issue named and worked on in another way? > > The concept certainly covers meta information in HTML pages, tags in > protocols, URLs, etc. that can be used in filtering traffic (OPES, > censoring, profiling, obtaining information on privacy, personal > behaviours) or further retrievals through search engine queries. I > may also cover some "subliminal" networking applications: sending > semi-hidden information to obtain a desired user comportment like in > advertising, intox, denials of thinking, psychological war. > > Conceptually this may be a fundamental mechanism of cybernetics (as > the art of efficient independent system governance in using analog > models obtained by feed-backs). There is therefore a need to > distinguish between legitimate, necessary, authorised meta-informing > and meta-spaming. And to define authorisation/prevention (like for > example the cookies related arsenal) and IFF (information friend/foe > filtering). Trolling is probably a form of meta-spam. To which extent > string oriented solutions helps meta-spaming? In ASCII, in > multilingual environment? What are the pollution possibilities (for > example using URL meta-spaming, using homograph meta-spaming, what > about the babel names [use of the punycoded version of an IDN]? etc.). > > Hacking in using plain text information rises the question of the > nature of the architexting we use all the time and of networked > languages. What is the XML, HTML, etc. security solutions? It is also > a problem for the concept of "para-data" which is fundamental to the > DRS I work on (distributed registry system) and to the multi-Internet > architectures (for example using classes): the legitimate conditions > for co-working systems to hold in parallel different data for the > same meta-data. > > I am not familiar with applications firewalling but I suppose it is a > problem their designers meet? > > The most immediate concern is when an RFC may help meta-spaming over > private issues or represent a security threat: it should then be part > of the security considerations. The resulting commercial, hatred, > privacy and civil rights, etc. violations incitements or > manipulations should be considered. Structural ways should be found > to make them impossible. When one considers the importance of the > spam, on-line advertising, privacy protection, etc. in the users > concerns, no one can doubt that the identification of meta-spaming > characteristics and of the ways to contain it is a key issue. > > This is most probably one of the most achieved because one of the > simplest vector for machine, mental, community security violation? > Thank you for your comments. > jfc > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf