[Asrg] Protecting Legitimate Commercial Email (was Re: ESPC Proposal)

I've managed to keep mostly quiet up to now, but I have to say I'm 
disturbed at the extremism implied by some of the reactions to the ESPC 
proposal (which, for the record, I know nothing about beyond what I 
read today on the web site).
None of us would be on this list if we didn't think spam was a bad 
thing, and none of us would waste our time reading it if we didn't feel 
fairly passionately about that fact.  However, if we want to achieve 
consensus on a solution, it really behooves us to consider the 
interests of *all* of the legitimate senders of email, including some 
who are rather different from most of us individuals.
I believe passionately that many kinds of commercial use of email are 
Very Good Things.  Every bill and account statement that I get via 
email saves a fraction of a tree; already whole forests are arguably 
being saved on utility billing, for example.  The same applies to the 
commercial mailings I get from Amazon, the New York Mets, and the ACLU. 
 I opted in to their programs, and I want to get their mail.  Solutions 
to spam that neglect the interest that those organizations have in 
communicating with me are ultimately not in my interest, either.
It seems obvious that the ESPC is an attempt by those who self-define 
as legitimate commercial emailers to separate themselves from spam well 
enough to construct discriminating solutions.  We may well argue with 
how some of them define legitimate commercial email, but it is only by 
hashing out those definitions that we are going to solve this problem.  
(I have talked with enough of these people to know that what they want 
most is a Very Clear Line not to cross, but they are competitively 
disadvantaged if they draw that line more competitively than the next 
guy, and thus badly need a consensus-based Line.)  If we neglect their 
interest in favor of blacklists that prevent 20% of their customers 
from receiving their messages, we will never converge on a universal 
solution, because some very big companies will perceive themselves as 
having no choice but to fight in court against our "solutions".
It seems to me that everyone on the ASRG list should be *welcoming* the 
effort that ESPC seems to represent, and that we (the technical 
community) should be engaging in critical but respectful discussions 
about the details.  To think that the IETF can "solve" this problem in 
a way that is unacceptable to the ESPC members is to grossly overstate 
the influence of the IETF in today's Internet.  Remember that behind 
every DoubleClick stand dozens of Citibanks, Lufthansas, and Wal-marts 
tryingto communicate with their opt-in customers.  I'd hate to see the 
IETF try to fight them all.  -- Nathaniel
PS -- FWIW, my own domain, guppylake.com, has been spam-blocked and 
unable to send mail to anyone at Road Runner (rr.com) for over two 
weeks now.  Apparently Road Runner is engaged in a pissing match with 
XO Communications, my provider, and I'm caught in the cross fire -- 
they're each telling me that I have to convince the other to do 
something.  In this case, Road Runner is ignoring all the evidence and 
presuming me guilty until vouched for as innocent by my own provider, 
XO, which seems to be suffering nothing more than the normal gross 
incompetence I have come to expect from ISP's.  I find it hard to 
believe that this kind of blacklisting can possibly be a good thing, 
and I certainly don't feel like I've been given any Due Process rights. 
 -- Nathaniel 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg