SPAM - conclusions?

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Thank you for all the discussion on this subject. Rather than this going 
around some more,  I would like to take a stab at reconciling the views 
and possible future actions.

Views: (correct me if this is wrong)

1. There seems to be consensus that nothing should be done that prevents 
a human from openly accessing a postee's email address to preserve the 
openness of OASIS.  This may not preclude some sort of  human 
decipherable obfuscation to prevent spam harvesters as long as it does 
not affect human ability to send emails to respond.

2. Many feel we should not take offensive action against spammers.  To 
err on the side of sanity, it may be a good idea to not take any 
offensive action.

3. While many felt it may not be the best place to fight back, there 
seems to be an equal or slightly greater number that are willing to do 
everything within reason to prevent more spam.  The rational is a 
feeling that fear of spam consequences prevents many people from 
potentially participating in OASIS list discussions.

If the above is true, it seems to make sense to set up a small group to 
study the issue and have the group make some recommendations back to the 
OASIS TAB and Chairs.  If there is a way to prevent spam harvesting of 
emails, perhaps it is our responsibility to do something.

I am willing to donate some time for this. This is an issue that will 
free my time up in the future if we can curb the onslaught of ruthless 
and malicious spam.

My CAD $0.02 worth

Duane Nickull

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com