| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Index Subject Index | <<< Threads >>> |
Peter/Patrik,
Please do let Richard and I know any queries, suggestions or general feedback you may have on the text below. The WG procedures would not be changed by this change in focus..SE has given e-mail a lot of thought recently. Anti Network Abuse is such a huge area to work with, and there is now a tendency to not focus on e-mail as such at all. So this might be another step to the death of e-mail. Remember Usenet News? I believe that there should be a focus on trustworthy (more secure, robust, whatever) e-mail somewhere, but all I see is more focus on the wider issue on spam (on web, wikis and forums), trojans and botnets. There is the risk that we lose e-mail in the confusion.I fully support Patrik's view.It's better to stay in focus of a well-known problem then trying to solve the more general problem of network-related abuse. Expanding the focus might even ( i'm speculating here) involve the agenda of RIAA and then shureley consensus would go down the drain.Keep the anti-spam-wg as an spam-fighting group. Let other interests start their own group.
The fear that e-mail abuse may be "lost in the noise" is one that has been in previous discussions on this topic and I can only say the same thing that has been said previously, that spam is still one of the most obvious and prevelant forms of network abuse, however it is becoming harder and harder to consider the spam issue without looking at some of the root causes, which brings us to the wider issue of network abuse. In addition there are ways in which the network is being abused that were not there when the WG was set-up, so it seems very much like a natural evolution. Also, having a separate working group for botnets etc. etc. really isn't going to scale. One of the comments that has been made elsewhere is a requirement to state that we are talking here about network-*level* abuse, so we would not be talking about cybersquatting or the hosting of illegal content. It was never intended that the charter/WG address such issues, but I will be aiming to state it specifically in the proposed charter. Brian.
| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Subject | <<< Threads >>> |