Vernon Schryver wrote:
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.
You are aguing by character assasination. Shame on you. I have nothing
to do with bulk mailing industry, either as a participant or as a
consultant.
My main professional concerns are with corporate e-mail system and
frankly, little of what is being discussed on this list will have any
impact on how my corporate clients fight spam.
The views I am expressing here are those of a small business person
trying to use the Internet. There are a lot of us out there. We are not
being well served. Of course, I could go out and form my own ISP, but
then some aj would just put it on a blacklist.
Those statements all assume that what matters is the
transmission of mail and not the wishes of mail recipients to not
receive spam.
How about that? Imagine someone actually wanting the mail to go through.
How rash of me.
As I said earlier in this thread, this is not an either/or situation. It
is possible to make the system work and stop spam. I have even suggested
one non-invasive approach on which no one has commented. I do not
understand how you can believe that making e-mail unreliable represents
some kind of victory over spam.
-LM
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg