Re: [Asrg] Position paper, in zipped HTML

Kee Hinckley wrote:
> At 10:45 PM -0500 3/16/03, Chris Lewis wrote:
>
> > Rodney's list immediately showed why no-one will ever accept a global 
> > opt-out list:  within a week, domains comprising on the order of 60 
> > million email address had opted out.
> Actually opted out, or had someone wrote a program to do it?
Actually opted-out.  AOL had opted out (there's half in one swell foop) 
as did several other major ISPs.  So did we (only(!) half a million 
addresses).
There was a confirmation method wired in for domains, but I forget the 
details.  SafeEPS was decommissioned some time ago in favour of the DMA 
eMPS system, but the eMPS system was never as good as SafeEPS. Eg: 
despite eMPS at one point supporting domain-wide opt-out (perhaps 
specifically to shut me up), it's not clear that it was ever generally 
available - last I looked the _possibility_ of doing it isn't visible 
_anywhere_ on eMPS.
One questions whether eMPS has ever blocked a single piece of email...

eMPS is 100% incontrovertible evidence that a voluntary opt-out list 
will _NEVER_ work to reduce spam.
> Massachusetts has a new opt-out web interface for phone spam.  It 
> verifies the phone number using your address.  Writing software to 
> opt-out virtually everyone in the state would not be that hard.
Unless you did confirmation properly.  Why wouldn't you use confirmation 
techniques?  Marketers would insist on it - and I have no problem with 
granting them that wish.
> Unfortunately (or not) it turns out that opt-out lists have the same 
> problem as email in general.  No authentication.
And the same solutions. Ie: confirmation.  With only one (or a few) 
_useful_ opt-out lists, implementing and deploying is trivial.
SafeEPS was about as perfect as an opt-out list could _ever_ be. But it 
died.  Its replacement hasn't made a difference to anyone's mailbox as 
far as anyone can determine.
Hence my original point, opt-out lists will never fly if the marketers 
have anything to say about it.
> I assume that's why opting out of phone spam (the marketing opt-out 
> list, not the one the feds are setting up) is free if you send them a 
> letter, but costs $5 if you do it on-line.  Authentication by level of 
> effort.  Although the claim is that the $5 is to cover costs.
There are regulatory issues, where a system may be predicated upon the 
idea of a "free" snail mail unsubscribe is legally required, whereas an 
online one "for convenience" is fair game for a (modest) processing fee. 
The $5 fee also short-cuts authentication requirements, but a 
confirmation mechanism would serve just as well.



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