Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML

> From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com>
> ...
> But domain-wide opt-out is the most problematic getting acceptance. 
> John remembers our trip to the DMA...
I hope "problematic" was sarcastic.  Members of DMA are not stupid.
They know how many domains would choose to not opt-out.  Even bulk
mail senders would opt-out by domain if they could.  Almost no one
wants unsolicited bulk mail.  An majority of users at almost every
domain would a prior opt-out if they could, which is to say that they'd
demand their domain be opted-out.  Can you name a single domain with
any real users that would not opt-out?--I can't.

The only domain-wide opt-out that will ever be honored will be implmented
on the SMTP servers of the domain.  The same applies to any sort of
opt-out.  The experience with the Colorado do-not-call list (a large
part of the state signed up long before with live) and the screams of
outrage about the new Federal do-not-call list from the telemarketers
are relevant.


That fact gives me an excuse to write about a problem with the
charter for this mailing list.  The problem involves what seems
to be some idea of convey consent to receive mail to mail senders.

It is unrealistic bordering on insane to depend on anything that
requires marketing and sales people to not act on the hope that you
made a mistake when you opted out 6 months ago or that you might now
be interested.  The nature of the job requires semi-cold calling, or
testing whether prospects are still uninterested and really meant
to opt-out.  For example, that's why two years after some accounts
@rhyolite.com opted-out of Dell Computer junk mail and then were
disabled and turned into spam traps, Dell decided to give them "free
subscriptions" to a monthly newsletter about special deals.

Consent to receive mail will only be honored by agents of the user.
Agents of mail senders will always err on the side of sending given
any excuse, no matter how unlikely.  There's no point in telling mail
senders what mail you don't want, because they'll be driven to find
a way to understand any refusal as not applying to them.  If you say
you don't want to hear about X, they'll discover that what they have
to say is unrelated to X.  If you say you don't want to hear from
outfit Y, they'll point out that they're now sending from Z.  If you
say you want to hear nothing at all, they'll say they must have
misunderstood because you wouldn't have a public mailbox if you didn't
want to receive mail from strangers.

It would be crazy to convey indications of consent to advertisers
and expect them to honor anything except "sure, tell me more."

  ...

Should this mailing list be considered shut down until next week?  
Is there any hope that new drafts proposed taxonomies will be written
during the excitement of the IETF meetng?


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