From: "Alan DeKok" <aland(_at_)freeradius(_dot_)org>
...
The most curious part about it was my fights with "anti-spam" people
who had blacklisted the domain, or marked it as "spammer", solely
because of forged addresses in the "From" line. It usually took
substantial effort to get them to understand that a forged address in
a "From" line had little to do with the domain used in the forgery.
I'm not surprised to see the same attitude here.
There is a conflict between those who value not receiving spam more
than failing to receive legitimate mail. There is a larger conflict
between those who are more interested in being heard reducing spam
and those who just want to be left alone. This conflict is evident
in some contrasting definitions of "spam" and "consent." Those who
value being heard more than being left alone define favor definitions
of "consent" that includes various degrees of "implicit consent,"
ranging from "contributing to a mailing list constitutes consent to
receiving messages that the sender considers related to the mailing
list" to "publishing your address constitutes consent to any and all
email until you explicitly revoke that consent, and that revocation
must be very narrowly focused."
Those who just want to be left alone compare the amount of objectionable
from 211/8 or apparently from or advertising .nu domains compared to
desirable mail. If the ratio is higher than their individual thresholds,
they erect defenses against that all traffic with that characteristic.
Those who value being heard object in principle to such defenses, and
have apoplectic fits if they discover they've been blocked.
The first group believes that "consent" can only be determined by the
recipient of mail or explicit proof of consent such as a subscription
confirmation. The second believes in various forms of implicit consent.
These two axes are independent. There are people who are comfortable
with 10% false positive ratios who believe in implicit consent as well
as others who can't use 0.1% false positive ratios but who also believe
in implicit consent. Similarly, those who reject implicit consent
can be on either side of the valuing not receiving spam vs. failing
to receive legitimate mail.
Those who believe in implicit consent are likely to disagree with that,
because they believe that mail that has whatever they consider implicit
consent is legitimate.
An irony is that most who believe in implicit consent do not believe
it applies to all mail. They find various categories, such as child
pornography, impossible to consent to implicitly, and so for that
mail, they act as if they don't believe in implicit consent.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg