From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com]
There is one other reason that I think this is a good idea. It will
let *us* (as in, the end-user population) hold them accountable for
their email. I don't think they have any real idea just how much of
their email is unwanted.
Being held accountable absolutely one of the goals of the ESPC proposal. We
want to be held accountable - holding senders accountable is necessary to
solving the spam problem.
If they sign up for a "no spam" policy, and they make it possible to
easily identify who's screwing up, this make force them (unwillingly)
into the confirmed-opt-in situation they are trying to avoid.
We're not particularly trying to avoid confirmed opt-in. We are trying to
make it easy to identify who is sending unwanted mail. This will motivate
senders to figure out who wants their mail and who does not, by whatever
means are appropriate for their audience. From a user point of view, spam is
mail I didn't want to get, and that is based on the mail content. Marketers
are careful with their targeting off-line. They (and their email service
providers) can be and should be just as careful on-line.
A whitepaper is in the works.
Margaret Olson.
molson(_at_)roving(_dot_)com