ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history

2003-03-28 10:56:29
Brad,

You make a good point for an additional requirement:

Requirement 7)  The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of 
Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe messaging 
commonly referred to as SPAM.

Eric

On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:33 AM, Brad Templeton 
[SMTP:brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com] 
wrote:
...

On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how much success
there will be in defining the terms.  Some what Solicited to be implied on a 
pre-
existing relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe requests" rule) 
and others
want solicited to mean explicit subscription.  I would hope they can be
reconciled.  And there are arguments on bulk in either case and where the
cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are probably enough to
solve the spam problem -- if they were obeyed.   Alas, I have poor faith on 
any
of this being obeyed.   As you know, a significant fraction of the spam
sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- fraud, illegal medical
sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those spammers obeying
the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox.


Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any protocol defined
in this matter allow individual choice.  Thus an ability to express desires
after a RCPT command, in addition to at the banner, with a requirement that
new mail tools SHOULD support this while older ones may only support the
banner.
_______________________________________________
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