Vernon Schryver wrote:
Yeah, right, like all of the terrible things that happen to outfits
displaying the TrustE logo but not exactly respecting any privacy
but that of their own management.
In the real world, such a system would be exactly like the TrustE
system. Microsoft would promise "we'll terminate the account of anyone
accused of spamming," and do it. UUNET would promise "we'll investigate
any reports of spamming," and no one would be able to prove otherwise.
Some outfit would make a mistake and promise "we won't send spam,"
hire or sell to a rogue user, send spam, promise to do better next
time, and change its promise to UUNet's.
In other words, see current news about Habeas, Topica, and Harris.
In still other words, if you ran an ISP or a company and promised
to pay damages should your outfit ever send spam, your board of
directors or other boss would or should fire you on the spot.
Assuming such a liability voluntarily would be grossly incompetent.
I agree and acknowledge the fact that no one will voluntarily assume any
liability... to do so would undoubtedly place anyone's employment in
jeopardy. It's my assertion that liability (in some form) will have to
be forced on everyone. I realize that one goal of this group is to find
a solution that will be accepted by the greater Internet community.
Forcing liability down people's throats is a good way to get an idea
killed off... unless the potential "pay off" is great enough that they
take the risk. In this case, relieving the burden that spam places on a
large network may be a great enough prize that people are willing to
accept the imposed liability.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg