At 5:52 AM -0800 3/28/03, william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net wrote:
> You don't *want* it to stop
the people you explicitly gave permission to.
Opt-out should be specific enough that you could blacklist entire category
of commercial email but whitelist particular sender. So basicly even if
you gave them your email to say notify of updates and they are instead
trying to pitch you new product or service you could stop that depending
how well opt-out is both technology and laws.
That gets pretty complex and subjective. Nice in concept though.
> A global opt-out list is a tacit statement that it's okay to spam
random email addresses.
I hope I did not make it appear as if that is true!
I don't see how it can be otherwise. If I put my email address on my
web site (e.g. support(_at_)example(_dot_)com), why won't they assume that it's
okay to send anything to that address so long as it's not on an
opt-out list?
> After all, if you didn't want email, you
> would have put your name on the list, right? This is exactly the
> *wrong* way to go. We do not want "100 million email address CDs" to
> become legitimate sales tools just because they were cleaned by the
> opt-out list.
Technology for opt-out should be good enough to prevent use of the email
list by anybody but authorized bulk mailer. So spammers would not be able
to verify your address either one way or another, other means should be
No verification necessary. Just remove opted-out people from the CD
and sell it.
> You do *not* want every company in the country
broadcasting email address to every address they can find.
I did not understand this.
Umm. Yes, well it would help if I'd written it in a known language.
What I meant to say was, "You do *not* want every company in the
country sending email to every address they can find that isn't on
the opt-out list."
> I strongly believe that this group should make absolutely no
recommendations for a global opt-out system.
If you look at the asrg charter, it specifically says
"Possible components of such a framework may include:
Consent Expression Component: This involves recipients expressing a policy
that gives consent or non-consent for certain types of communications"
So it seems we will have to make these "recomendations".
Absolutely. I'm saying that we should recommend against opt-out as
means of consent. There are other, much simpler, ways to define
consent.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg