Kee Hinckley wrote:
At 7:52 PM -0800 3/27/03, william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net wrote:
The problem is that your proposal forces all forces the same
settings on
all users of the isp and does not make any distintion on type of UCE. It
Not to mention all the domains hosted by that mail server--even more
problematic with MXs.
The whole world doesn't consist of ISPs and multiple-domain MTAs.
Corporate and private domains need to be able to specify a choice.
"No UBE" is corporate policy here. Indeed, much of the content UBE'd
here would get the recipient in serious trouble if they actually took
the UBE'er up on it. The recipients _don't_ have a choice. LEgally,
neither do we.
And even with ISPs, a UBE banner would trivially allow them to
differentiate service levels, and a low pain migration path should be
easy to specify.
At the volumes we're seeing, the people who'd actually want take
advantage of the choice of "unfiltered" are vanishingly small.
Remember the choice here w.r.t. survival is between "controlling UBE" or
preventing it outright.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg