ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutio ns, including some new items)

2003-03-10 19:52:57
I think Vern's point can be generalized.

If only 20% of the spam being generated is being generated by people who
should know better and are likely to respond to best practices type
approaches then it is a worthwhile exercise to address that 20%.

There is certainly a hard core of thugs and murderers who use spam as part
of their 419 extortion rackets that are not going to listen, but the spam
from those quarters already has a very distinct signal.

What we need to avoid at all costs is a situation where people start to
believe the propaganda from the spam senders, that it is alright to do this
stuff and that pretty soon every F500 will act that way.

I strongly suspect that the biggest spam scam is when the spam hauses take
money from their customers claiming that spam works. 

                Phill

-----Original Message-----
From: Vern Paxson [mailto:vern(_at_)icir(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:32 PM
To: Liudvikas Bukys
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Paul Judge
Subject: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of
solutions, including some new items)


** consent verification

    When I saw the ASRG charter, I leaped to the conclusion that a
    consent model would be useful for two reasons:  (1) to 
contribute
    to a rigorous careful discussion, and (2) to produce human- and
    machine-readable representations of consent that would be useful
    for such things as:
    - reducing the "I didn't know any better" gray-area excuse of
      spammers regarding opt-in, opt-out, and database reselling
    - making life better for users by causing practices to 
converge on
      consent that is explicit, self-documenting and 
user-accessible,
      establishing standardized representations (similar to DSNs),
      and offering choices that are "good enough" but much lighter-
      weight than, say, PKI.

    Is this what the chair was thinking?

If by chair you mean the IRTF chair, then somewhat.  The 
emphasis on consent
in the charter was an attempt to frame the effort in terms of 
high-level
goals rather than particular mechanisms.  The notion of 
producing human/
machine-readable representations of consent is certainly 
within scope, but
so are schemes that incorporate consent without such representations.

              Vern  (speaking as IRTF chair)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutio ns, including some new items), Hallam-Baker, Phillip <=