From: jm(_at_)jmason(_dot_)org (Justin Mason)
...
(We supported Habeas as a non-spam token, because they made it clear
they'd enforce their rules with a really big stick when their mark was
forged or infringed.)
...
I also white-list the Habeas mark and provide examples of how to do that
in DCC clients. However, I'm pessimistic about its future. Because the
Habeas mark is marketed only to senders of legitimate bulk mail, it will
come to indicate mail that most people will be content to miss. It will
also indicate "spam" to some people, because mistakes will happen, even
if most mistakes are made by users who forget what mail they've requested
by a confirmed opt-in dance. Thus, in the long run there are only
pressures to blacklist or negatively score mail with the Habeas mark,
despite my confidence that Habeas will ensure that the mark is only used
on genuine confirmed opt-in mail or other purely non-spam.
In the long run, any white-listing mark, flag, or certificate must
not indicate merely "probably not spam" but "mail I really want to
receive." Any marker that says "this mail I'd be happy or just content
to skip" is doomed.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg