On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:15PM -0500, Gary Feldman allegedly wrote:
I'm finding the large amount of discussion, albeit interesting,
also depressing, as it doesn't seem directed towards making
progress. So let me try to get back to the earlier question
concerning the charter:
1. On the use of "Consent-Based Communication"
The charter begins by arguing that spam is not well-defined,
and therefore moves to generalize the problem with consent-
based communications. Let me first observe that based
on the discussion here, the definition of consent and consent-
based communication isn't clear enough.
True enough, Gary. As with others I have no idea about the original
intent and meaning of "Consent-Based Communication". A term I would
prefer is "Permission-Based Communication" but that's really a nit.
The key to me is this: with the current system, the sender has way too
much influence over whether an email shows up in my Inbox or not. To
my mind, "Consent-Based" means that the decision about whether an
email shows up in my Inbox needs to be slanted much more towards me
rather than the sender.
In short, we need to give Inbox control back to the recipient. In that
light I guess that "consent" means something like "I consent to your
mail showing up in my Inbox and if I choose otherwise, you cannot
override my lack of consent". Or crudely, "My Inbox, my rules".
That to me is the high level goal. Return control to the user.
Regards.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg