Re: Anti-spam WG agenda RIPE 41

Good Morning

IMHO although this subject is not at all treated it appears important to
grasp the nettle of the legal implications of SPAM as applied to both
online and offline definitions, especially in a context where, especially
in some European countries, the border line between the two contexts is to
say the least blurred and will become even more so in an IPv6 environment.

Although it appears totally legitimate to fulminate against spam in all
senses of the term, there remains a grey area in some definitions which
could be misused/misapplied in areas where control of the freedom of
information circulation might be questionned top down.

This of course does not enter into the considerations tackled by WG per se
but their implicit presence is part of the overall mosaic

Best regards Jonathan Robin


Rodney.Tillotson@localhost,Internet writes:
>Please suggest more or better things we should discuss.
>
>
>Anti-spam WG draft agenda for RIPE 41, Amsterdam January 2002.
>
>A    Administrative Matters
>     A1   Scribe
>     A2   List of participants
>     A3   Agenda
>     A4   Minutes
>        
>B    Update
>     B1   Recent list discussion
>     B2   Developments in UBE
>               Open proxies
>               DNS hopping
>               Mainstream advertisers
>               Patterns of forged originators
>     B3   Developments in anti-spam
>               Port filtering deployment
>               DNSBLs
>     B4   Regulation and legislation
>     B4   Products
>               Open relays
>
>C    Technical measures
>     C1   Filtering
>     C2   Hashcash
>
>D    Interactions
>     D1   Marketers
>     D2   Other ISPs
>     D3   Bulk mailers
>
>E    Advice
>     E1   opt-IN lists (work item)
>     E2   Reporting UBE
>
>X    AOB
>     X1   Privacy of the WG list
>
>Y    Future tasks
>      
>Z    Agenda for RIPE 42
>     Z1   Tutorials?
>               How UBE works
>               How UBE affects ISPs
>               Reading UBE headers
>
>