I think it's trivial to define consent.
I tell you to go away, you go away. You don't come back in three months
to see if I'm still mad at you, you don't change your corporation name
and contact me as a new entity, you go away. Consent is easy, at the
base of it.
What's missing is a standard way to communicate consent, as well as a
standard way to define consent expectations (i.e., no generally
accepted way to put up a "no solicitors" sign on your front door.). The
lack of that no solicitors sign doesn't give you the right to walk into
the living room to talk to me, but it does mean you can knock. If the
sign is there and you still knock, silly you.
On the other hand, spammers are about consent the way burglars are
about knocking. Since there's no consent model spammers will ever
follow, it won't solve the spam problem, and solving any other problem
doesn't matter until the spam problem is solved.
(it won't be solved by lumping everyone in as spammers, either, but
that seems to be, increasingly, the attitude I see on this list. Oh,
well)
On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 04:59 PM, Kee Hinckley wrote:
Unfortunately consent is even harder to define than spam.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg