Re: Let's try to be productive...

Well, proposing a specific taxonomy was certainly a straw man to be
refined.

But we can take a step back, is there any value to a generally agreed
upon taxonomy?

I think so because it's the only way to begin to classify and
categorize anti-spam efforts and compartmentalize efforts and even
language or audience (e.g., end user vs ISP.)

I noticed no one seems to have responded to the list of possible work
products.

That would seem to be what any taxonomy of spam ultimately is
supporting, what are the intended work products? What in the taxonomy
do they address?

Any attempt to manage an effort needs some way to set goals and
measure how well those goals are being met.

I suppose we could roll that first question back even further:

  How would we know we agreed on a taxonomy or work product goals etc?

That is, what is the process for this list?

Do we vote, form committees or working groups, just endlessly pick
paragraphs out of each others' notes and find fault with them and then
let both efforts (the original pp and the response) fade disappear for
all eternity into the heat death of the universe?

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | [email protected]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=lists.gurus.org