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

Hi,

If the object is to classify anti-spam efforts, then probably the wrong pla=
ce to start is with classifying spam. As a rough first draft, I=92d start h=
ere:

1. Ensuring your own network security. Clearly this is a different task for=
 at least these groups: Internet Service Providers, Email service providers=
, home and business consumers of both types of service.

2. For email service providers: filtering inbound email, including as consu=
mers of higher level co-operative ventures like RBLs.

3. Provision of information about bad senders, such as RBLs with IP address=
 and sender domain reputations.

4. Provision of information about suspect content, such as header and body =
content patterns. SPAMCOP rules would be one example.

5. Legislation: drafting of national and international legislation, and sta=
te enforcement actions.

6. Internet governance: drafting of standards to support best practice.

7. Internet governance: actions taken against known bad actors, such as tak=
ing down IP addresses, domains, etc.

8. Code support for detecting bad actors, filtering email on that basis, an=
d co-operating with other Internet users to share information about email s=
ource reputations.


On 6 Jan 2014, at 20:17, Barry Shein <[email protected]> wrote:

>=20
> Well, proposing a specific taxonomy was certainly a straw man to be
> refined.
>=20
> But we can take a step back, is there any value to a generally agreed
> upon taxonomy?
>=20
> 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.)
>=20
> I noticed no one seems to have responded to the list of possible work
> products.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Any attempt to manage an effort needs some way to set goals and
> measure how well those goals are being met.
>=20
> I suppose we could roll that first question back even further:
>=20
>  How would we know we agreed on a taxonomy or work product goals etc?
>=20
> That is, what is the process for this list?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> --=20
>        -Barry Shein
>=20
> The World              | [email protected]           | http://www.TheWorld=
.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Ca=
nada
> 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=3Dlists.gurus.org

--=20
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148

-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=3Dlists.gurus.org