ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] define spam

2003-03-30 22:07:32
On Sunday, March 30, 2003 12:32 PM, Vernon Schryver 
[SMTP:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com] wrote:
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui(_at_)plaidworks(_dot_)com>

As written, that is a bad definition, because it allows and even
encourages literally hundreds millions of advertisers to individually
ask you to opt-out.

right now, that's still an improvement over the status quo. Until we
GET to that point, trying to deal with that kind of consent issue
doesn't really matter. and your numbers blow the issue well out of
proportion.
...
There are more than 20,000,000 corporations registered in the U.S.
At least 1% of them might reasonably send you one opt-out request per
year.  That would put 54 opt-out requests into your mailbox every day.
That is a significantly higher spam-load than many and I think most
end-users suffer today.

"Legitimate" spammers would be happy to send us as much unsolicited
and unwanted junk email as we now get in paper.  I receive 1 to 2 dozen
pieces of paper junk every day.  I do not want the same in my email box.


But that is a false argument.  It would be prohibitive for every company to at 
first commission a project to reach everyone and then embark on such a project. 
 Every company is not going to do that and the millions-CD is not going to cut 
it (even in the current climate) because of the rudimentary 'protections' that 
are deployed.  So no I don't agree to that premise it seems (and IMHO is) a 
non-starter to consider.  I could be wrong but I don't think numbers of 
requests for a consent agreement is even the issue, it is whether the agreement 
is ultimately enforceable (whatever shape that takes).  To me in the end it is 
about being sure I CAN stop it.

I think Mr. Von Rospach knows that is a gross misrepresentation of
my positions.

It doesn't matter if he does, from my point of view NONE of our...or should I 
say only a consensus view is what really matters do you think there is not some 
reason to stipulate to the concept of consent based on perceived recipient 
response to the marketing mail (or blatant spam or whatever, e.g. 
relationship,...).

If you are an "e-marketer," there are more than two spam problems.
However, for most of us, there is only one spam problem, large amounts
of junk in our mailboxes.  We will require more than one solution for
the parts of the problem, but the problem is solitary.

I do not care what it is as long as I know it can be effectively controlled at 
a policy boundary defined by me.  Notice I said controlled and not stopped.  I 
think you are talking about control as well, of any type of communication that 
is within the context of our work.

-e

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>