On Monday, March 31, 2003 1:23 AM, Vernon Schryver
[SMTP:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com] wrote:
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com>
...
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.
There are now many outfits that promise to do all of the work for
fees that are cheap compared to a small ad in the Yellow Pages,
not to mention compared to radio or print advertising. When the
current fraudulent spammers are finally squashed by governments,
there will more outfits selling more or less legitimate email
advertising campaigns than now sell web page design.
That may be true, but I think we agree on the basis point, at least in
principal. I understand and hopefully don't understate the issue you present.
I want to stress that although it will most likely remain a 'pain' for
recipients the marketing material the framework for rescinding or establishing
consent agreements is important.
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,
I would probably complain, but would lack standing to object to half
a dozen requests for consent agreement per year. Do you disagree?
No, I do not. I think we agree. I am not sure what the threshold is or should
be (and don't think that can be defined except subjectively).
On the other hand, one consent request per year per outfit in parts
of the computer business that I've been involved in would be many
times the spam that now gets past my filters.
Or maybe it wouldn't change at all and you would (based on other pertinent
factors) still receive <1 consent request.
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.
There is only a little spam that you cannot stop once you know about
it. IP address and envelope and SMTP client domain name filters are
extremely effective on all spam that you've seen before except spam
that tries hard to hide. Other mechanisms clean up most of the rest.
If your set of filters are leak more than one spam per day, you should
fire your filter vendors and hire better.
I'm trying to say that in practice, the various sorts of filters
currently give you a lot of power to enforce the consent agreement.
I certainly agree, that is what I meant by rudimentary 'protections', albeit a
trade-off so to speak to accepting the premise of a consent request and the
ability to enforce the subsequent agreement.
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg