If you don't want to consent to handle e-mail traffic, then don't. If
you do, then handle it properly and deliver legitimate mail. "Common
consent" does not extend the right to say you will handle mail and then
to refuse. That's just fraud.
That and related statements are quite familiar and representative
of the views of bulk mail advertisers whose efforts to deliver
unsolicited advertising have been affected by various sorts of
filtering. Those statements all assume that what matters is the
transmission of mail and not the wishes of mail recipients to not
receive spam. All contracts are only between ISPs and mail senders.
All obligations are to the sender of the mail. The statements
ignore the contrary fact that the contracts and obligations that
matter most and that can be enforced are between ISPs and recipients.
They also consistently ignore or deny the fact that contrary to
the lies of spammers, essentially all spam filtering is performed
on behalf of and generally at the clear request of mail recipients,
albeit often without recipients' technical understanding.
In other forums, someone would have raised the obvious question,
particularly after the appearance of the representative of other
senders of unsolicited bulk email such as Roving.com.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
P.S. I recently wrote that it had been 8 days since the most recent
attempt by Roving.com to send me spam. Since then they fixed that lapse.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg