Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: Disposing of spam

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:30:36 -0500

While the IETF certainly does not want useful messages to be blocked
by false positives in SPAM filters, these things are all a trade off.
Filtration of SPAM is helpful to all the subscribers to a list. As
long a false positives are rare enough, they are not that bad. The
sender should see that their message did not make it to the list and
take action, such as sending it directly to the WG chair for
retransmission or the like.

And, unless the trend can be reversed, as the global email system
gradually disolves in a rising tide of acidic diarrhea, we should
consider a few backup things, like adding the postal address and
work telephone number of WG chairs to WG charter pages.
 
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of bill
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:10 AM
To: 'Dean Willis'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: Disposing of spam

Dean - 

There aren't problems with SPAM filters at all - no spam has hit the
IPoIB list as far as I know - and all of it has been collected by
mailman to be discarded by me.

The problem isn't a technical one - but a policy one.  The IETF does not
want an automatic discard of SPAM.  What happens if the next great idea
gets hit by a spam filter and we never know about it.

On a side note I know of several scripts that will parse the output of
the mailman webpage - and return the correct post data message to have
them all discarded automagically. You didn't hear it from me though

Bill

I am training for my first endurance event... and SAVING lives click
here to find out more!
http://www.teamintraining.org/participant/strahm-163543

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dean Willis
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Disposing of spam

Radia Perlman wrote:

> Perhaps sharing of the load...having a bunch of people that act as 
> filters for the mailing list, and delete spam. So perhaps for a few 
> days each month, a volunteer looks through the stack of stuff that 
> arrived during that time and decides what to allow through. If it's 
> only for a few days a month, the load on any one volunteer might be 
> manageable.

Or how about we use our beloved security expertise to filter it? There's

  got to be a way to use S/MIME or one of those other things (pgp, 
etc.)to "raise the bar" on SPAM. If we can't use our own tools to 
protect our own lists, we should just give up and raise pigeons!

Or maybe that's what Steve's been hinting about . . .

--
Dean

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:55:45 -0800 (PST)

> work telephone number of WG chairs to WG charter pages.

So we can be hit by two other categories of spam?  No thanks!

Kireeti.
-------