At 4:55 PM -0600 4/29/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> From: Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com>
>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.
So would a marker that stated the type of mail (e.g. transactional
vs. informational) be valuable?
I doubt I understand "transactional vs. informational" and flatter myself
that if I don't understand, then neither will enough users to matter.
My guess is that whatever those categories are, they don't matter.
The mail I want to read does not fit in any simple box that senders
can understand. Many transactions such as "your winning lottery ticket
Okay. Then what kind of marker would indicate that a message is
something you want to receive? Assume for a minute that if they lie,
you get to have them drawn and quartered--so there's sufficient oomph
to keep it accurate.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg