I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of
blocking or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read
this IRTF group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach.
Well, if the group is going to consider the question of consent,
then it has to ask "consent to what" and define what mail needs to
even be concerned about the consent of the recipient.
well, I'm uneasy with the term "consent" anyway. but part of the problem
may be that I don't know what the charter means by that.
one interpretation of "consent" is an opt-out mechanism - recipient can say
"I don't want to receive spam" (assuming that there's some definition of
"spam") and expect that this creates a burden on the sender to not do so.
another interpretation of "consent" would be a direction to the MTS -
"I don't want to receive any message with the following characteristics ..."
(and I specify which characteristics) or "Any mail that comes from a
dubious source should be delayed for N days (by which time we'll know if
he's a spammer) and it can be only text and less than Mk bytes in length"
which would authorize upstream MTAs to discard, bounce, block, delay, etc.
mail intended for me, according to the criteria that I set.
or maybe there's another interpretation I haven't thought of yet...
I don't think the charter is very clearly worded.
(mind you, I can see problems with both meanings of "consent")
Nor would we want to have all users of existing mailers need to get
new ones which understand consent protocols etc. unless they are
using them for bulk mail which is unsolicited/from strangers/whatever.
Or is it the hope of this group to research new protocols that would
require all people sending mail to have new tools?
surely our immediate task is simply to understand what is feasible, using
the existing mail system and protocols as a starting point. and I can't
imagine that a proposal that depended on "all users" or "all people" to
upgrade their tools in order to be effective would work.
actually, since we are a research group, and not a working group, I don't
expect that we are intended to produce a definite answer - but instead try to
increase the understanding of what kinds of measures might be effective, what
their drawbacks are, etc.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg