RE: [Asrg] A New Plan for No Spam / DNSBLS

To Margaret Olson:

You've made a number of claims about what this initiative will bring, 
and have said a number of things that seem reasonable at face value. 
However, there is a gulf between talk and action that has not been 
bridged by similar "initiatives" in the past. Can you fill in some 
missing information:
1 - with what authority do you speak? The website for the ESPC 
initiative does not list any leaders or others who are publicly said 
to speak authoritatively on behalf of the other members.
2 - my greatest concern (I cannot speak for others here) is not those 
mailers who are well-behaved of their own initiative, but all the 
rest. Why do you suppose your organization will be able to improve 
things? If your few members are not already well-behaved, what is 
their incentive to stay in the organization and suffer "punishment" 
and for that matter, what is the worst you can do to them? If they 
are not well-behaved now, what is their motivation in forming this 
organization? To put this most plainly, what can you offer to 
demonstrate that this is not simply a lobbying effort?


At 19:44 -0400 4/28/03, Olson, Margaret wrote:
>  >From: Vernon Schryver 
> [<mailto:vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>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.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg