From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com]
For example, Ms. Olson of Roving.com does not believe that any of
the messages that her organization sends are spam. She wants for her
mail exactly what you want for your mail. The only people who can
reliably distinguish spam from other sorts of mail are mail targets
and their agents, including their ISPs.
I completely agree with your premise - that the spam is defined by the mail
recipient, and what to deliver is a decision that should be made by the
recipients and their agents. But the current tools for doing this are
inaccurate and prone to being arbitrary.
The ESPC proposal gives you secure identity, a performance rating, and
source information (kind of consent) on which to base a decision to accept
or reject mail. You can judge the performance rating of both the originator
and the sending server. If you want to accept only confirmed opt in and
person to person mail, you can do that. The performance rating penalizes
senders and their agents for lying.
We are not telling anyone what they have to deliver, or trying to dictate
policies to ISPs. Nor are we telling you what spam is - that is for you to
decide. My opinion is irrelevant.
Margaret.