defining the ASRG (was Re: draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal))

[J.D. Falk-2]

Steve Atkins wrote:

> (A problem that's usually best solved by killfiling anyone participating
> in that sort of thread).

If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing the
purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was in there
somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on -- and none likely to
occur.

So, what's this group for?  Why are we all participating in it?

--
J.D. Falk
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[Ian Eiloart]

--On 1 July 2009 13:09:20 -0600 "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-lists@...>
wrote:

> Steve Atkins wrote:
>
>> (A problem that's usually best solved by killfiling anyone participating
>> in that sort of thread).
>
> If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing the
> purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was in there
> somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on -- and none likely
> to occur.
>
> So, what's this group for?  Why are we all participating in it?

I joined because I thought I'd learn about research related to spam.  I
stay because it turns out to be a good place to discuss issues relating to
spam, even though it turns out that there's little actual research. Perhaps
there are other fora that might be more suitable.

--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[John Levine-3]

>If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing
>the purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was
>in there somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on --
>and none likely to occur.

As far as I can tell, based on the papers at CEAS, there's precious
little spam-related research going on anywhere.

If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that they
do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

Perhaps I should make it so that whenever you update the wiki (where
we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques and
even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows
you to send one message.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[Ian Eiloart]

--On 2 July 2009 14:13:49 +0000 John Levine <johnl@...> wrote:

>> If we're going to go back to first principles, how 'bout discussing
>> the purpose of the ASRG?  I joined thinking the word "research" was
>> in there somewhere, but it's clear there's no research going on --
>> and none likely to occur.
>
> As far as I can tell, based on the papers at CEAS, there's precious
> little spam-related research going on anywhere.
>
> If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that
> they do into arguing, we might have some actual research.
>
> Perhaps I should make it so that whenever you update the wiki (where
> we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques

<http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Taxonomy_of_anti-spam_techniques>

> and
> even more slowly of spamming techniques)

<http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Taxonomy_of_spamming_techniques>

"this is a place holder until some real content can be added" lol!

> you get a credit that allows
> you to send one message.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@...
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[Danny Angus-2]

> If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that they
> do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

Amen.

> Perhaps I should make it so that whenever you update the wiki (where
> we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques and
> even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows
> you to send one message.

+1

d.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[Ale2008]

John Levine wrote:
> If people here were willing to put 1/10 of the work into research that they
> do into arguing, we might have some actual research.

By translating arguing into the collective refinement of concepts on
this list, and research into the consolidation of any discussion
results in the wiki, the above statement may become an operative recipe.

> Perhaps I should make it so that whenever you update the wiki (where
> we are ever so slowly building a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques and
> even more slowly of spamming techniques) you get a credit that allows
> you to send one message.

The opposite resolution, to grant write access to the wiki to whoever
posts one message, might also increase research in the above sense.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

[Ale2008]

John Levine wrote:
>>The opposite resolution, to grant write access to the wiki to whoever
>>posts one message, might also increase research in the above sense.
>
> OK, I made you an account, login vesely, temporary password ******

Thanks! I've added an "Accountability" section in
http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Path_validation#Accountability trying to
summarize recent discussion.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@...
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg