Subject: New Charter has been approved

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:53:36 -0500

Folks,

good news - we just heard that our re-charter has been approved. A 
formal announcement should go out shortly.

So, let's get started on our new deliverables - first one being the 
SMTP Use Cases draft.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:09:11 +0100

At 00:53 20/11/2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
>Folks,
>good news - we just heard that our re-charter has been approved. A formal 
>announcement should go out shortly.
>So, let's get started on our new deliverables - first one being the SMTP 
>Use Cases draft.

Congratulations! I totally disapprove that one could call OPES what is 
intended to be discussed. IMHO it is a serious change in the network 
architecture - even more than NATs (the way you conceive OPES now is a 
virtual networked NAT).

But it will be really fun and can really be useful! Great. BTW since I find 
Hurting the way you understand OPES, and it can really change the networo 
for the better, may be could we name them HOPES :-)

More seriously, I suggest that we carefully describe the deliverable in not 
enligting too much - but fully documenting - how it can be used against 
spam. So the demand for anti-spam comes from outside, rather than we look 
selling it. We may get more development funding from people with business 
HOPES (our promoting would be done by word of the mouth). We may also be 
criticized if OPES actually do not deliver, once we start testing or if 
takes time. Just a suggestion.

jfc

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:46:09 -0700 (MST)

Spam is one of the proposed Use Cases, right? Since ICAP is already 
being used to do spam filtering (even though it is awkward to apply 
ICAP to SMTP) we should have no problem documenting the need for OPES 
for this particular use case.

Thanks,

Alex.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, jfcm wrote:

> More seriously, I suggest that we carefully describe the deliverable 
> in not enligting too much - but fully documenting - how it can be 
> used against spam. So the demand for anti-spam comes from outside, 
> rather than we look selling it. We may get more development funding 
> from people with business HOPES (our promoting would be done by word 
> of the mouth). We may also be criticized if OPES actually do not 
> deliver, once we start testing or if takes time. Just a suggestion.