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.
In engineering, when a problem seems intractable, it's certainly
a legitimate strategy to consider a different problem, as is
being done here. But then, unless the original problems falls
out (as is frequently but not always the case), we must compare
the original problem to the problem being solved.
I'm not sure that "consent-based communication" is a different problem.
I believe it will be a very powerful generalisation and should allow us
to discuss the key issues without getting bogged down in arguments
about content classification, free-speech, politics etc.
The charter directs us to consider "architecture" and "framework".
I don't believe that that we're seeking anti-spam systems per se, rather
that we're working towards a system that enables their development.
The generalisation should lead us to consider:
The entities which grant and seek consent
(are they recipients/senders or "autonomous systems"? Both?
The charter refers to "recipients"
- is a recipient an email address?
a personal email address?
the person behind a set of email addresses?
a robot?
an network / mail system ?
)
The nature of the communication
(content? traffic characteristics? other stuff?)
I like the generalisation, let's work with it.
--
Regards,
Jon Kyme
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg