On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:39:09 -0400
Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 10:05 AM -0700 4/10/03, J C Lawrence wrote:
Currently I'm thinking about consent tokens having three potential
properties:
There's at least one existing system out there that creates N-use
email addresses. It's an interesting idea in the consent space. Even
more interesting (although we run the serious risk of getting two
general here) is N-use/time-period. In other words. I don't mind the
fact the Buy.com sends me email. But I don't need to hear from them
every *week*. So I might consent to hear from them once a month.
Hurm. Cute. That makes the list of potential poperties:
Date range
Sender address
Keyword
Use count
Frankly though, I think simple is the way to go. I wouldn't do date
range at all. I'd just do sender address.
At a spec level I don't see a particular problem with having a large
number of properties. Nothing need break if one end of a communication
channel doesn't support properties that the other end does, and thus
nothing need mandate that any "supporting system" needs to implement, or
even expose to its users, the whole panoply of permutations.
If we come up with more than one property, some implemented systems are
__guaranteed__ to skip implementing at least one of the set. We can
trust that with certainty. This doesn't mean we should make the base
property set huge, or the number of permutations huge, or in fact that
we should work very hard to derive a full dictionary of all the possibly
interesting properties. But, if we have a grammar and a set of exchange
protocols for establishing, transmitting, and maintaining consent
tokens; where those tokens are (for the sake of argument opaque
strings), and we propose a reasonable set of base properties and show
how they may be encoded in such an opaque string and how an MUA might
manipulate them in interesting and user-friendly ways...then the MUA
authors of the world can pick that up, implement some fraction of it and
run with it any damn way they want and a) we both don't have to care,
and b) we can reap the benefits.
My worry is how horrendously hard it will be to get AOL or MSN or
Hotmail to support plus addressing. Heck, can MS Exchange handle plus
addressing in any useful fashion?
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg