Alex Rousskov wrote:
However, since subscribers know the environment is not secure, but
still subscribe, they accept the risks. In other words, they
technically authorize the adaptations jfc is talking about. They
consent to receive forged e-mails and to being silently removed from
the distribution lists. Both things did happen many times in IETF. I
was even lucky enough to be the subject of the latter.
I remember that :)
Thus, we are talking about a two-party consent case. Nothing "bad" is
happening in jfc examples from consent point of view.
So, what you're saying is that (a) there are mechanisms in place that
can prevent things like the ones described in the example, and (b) if
users accept an environment that doesn't use these mechanisms, they
implicitly accept that things mentioned in the example can happen, so
they basically consent that this can happen?