On Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:30 PM, Jim Youll
[SMTP:jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu] wrote:
At 14:20 -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
Jon,
Not that it's a solution, but it seems such a person could give blanket
consent
for potential collaborators or customers to contact him for professional
reasons related to ice cream, and if JK happens to be an eccentric ice
cream
inventor who talks to nobody, then he would presumably not give such
consent
because he truly does not care to be contacted/hired.
JK> Absolutely - yes. Many possible mechanisms for advertising consent
JK> before the fact.
This is a technical forum. Please list any of the technical mechanisms
that are reasonable candidates for use, in an environment with 100
million users and tens or hundreds of thousands of independent
administrative localities.
These sorts of minute-by-minute challenges are unlikely to lead to anything
useful. Why can't you just say that if someone wants to promote the idea
of a consent mechanism, that they should announce a research thread and
pursue it.
I think they will. Personally, what I am getting is a sense that every body is
talking about there own pet solutions and framework for describing the problem
and no one is trying to scratch their head and write down the issues and derive
the solution (or solution sets); I do not think if you can successfully
describe consent in a technically bounded context then you can not prove a
solution is viable for further research. At least that's what I think (not
know). I don't particularly think this Anti-Spam RG is a commiseration society
but a technical forum. Yeah, consent is a 'concept' we all agree has some
perception impact and drives what many 'feel' is spam but can it be quantified
to such an exeunt that we can formulate a technical solution.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I can answer an old question with
a few minutes of head-scratching just because someone has thrown down
the gauntlet.
I don't see that myself.
I'm not particularly interested in the topic, however I do seem to subscribe
to a more wide interpretation of "consent" than you do... As I mentioned
earlier, consent is
already implied in the acceptance or rejection of mail at every step of the
process
already.
Are you referring to the 'consent' of an MTA to 'accept' a message for storage
or relay? I call that policy.
Perhaps the small "consent" steps that exist now can be better formalized to
at least provide more consistent results than are achieved now in a manner
that does
not require every last mailer on the net to be on board to work. I don't
know, really...
research and experimentation might tell us something about that. arguing
about it
probably won't.
my $.02
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg