While this may sound trivially obvious, many people I've talked to
believe that all solutions should be based solely on the recipients
consent.
I hope there aren't many people saying stuff as silly as that.
By this, they appear to be saying:
1) everyone else in the network should implement the consent of the
recipient.
Really? "should" perhaps, more likely "may", but "must" is out
2) the administrator of the network used by the originator of the
email cannot implement consent OTHER than that of the recipient.
The way recipient "consent" might interact with organisational /
operational policy hasn't been formally discussed in this group (?). It
should be.
Issue #1 doesn't scale to a network with millions of
indeed. I can't see how it could be *required*.
Issue #2 means that the administrator of a sending network cannot
decide (say) to filter outgoing port 25 for dial-up users.
indeed.
So recipient consent isn't the only consideration.
Who said it was? let's fight them :-)
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg