ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Several Observations and a solution that addresses them all

2003-03-10 12:39:15
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>

...
I don't assume that.  I agree with you entirely that filters have to be
recipient-specific.  however that doesn't mean that they have to be
implemented at the recipient's end.
...

Ok, but another of your messages seemed to be trying to define "consent"
in terms of individual filters.  I think that is a bad idea.

"Consent" should not include notions such as "has a From header value
that is valid according to RFC 2822 and a body no larger than 10
KBytes."  The mail that you consent to must to be tied to its sender
more than to its superficial technical characteristics.

It would be nice to be able to consent to some messages smaller than
10 KBytes from a sender but not to larger messages, but that sort
of thing is an infinite rat hole.

A problem with the technical characteristics definition of consent is
exemplified by one of your examples.  Consent needs to be something
that can be easily communicated with the message itself (perhaps by
reference) and checked potentially checked earlier than the target's
user interface.  Your example of the more than dozen technical
characteristics fails this criterion so badly I first thought it was
a joke.

An expression of "consent" must not require a MByte in a Turing-complete
language.  Even a statement in a first-order predicate calculus is
too complex.


Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg