On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:08:00 -0400
Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com> wrote:
On April 30, 2003 at 23:18 maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net
(Markus
Stumpf) wrote:
See, that's the fallacy in much of this discussion, it's largely a
discussion to try to PRESERVE unrealistic access to resources, except
the interest here is to grab control of that from the spammers for the
exclusive use of The Coalition of the Approved.
Where "The Coalition of the Approved" is defined as the individual
(presumed human) recipient behind a given email address, then yes, I
heartily agree. I see this as a question of consent mechanics, and not
a problem of identity, or at least not identity in the
this-particular-meat-body sense.
If you view the consent definition as being represented by a "consent
token" of some form (posit a "magic string"), then the consent token
effectively satisfies one of the corners of identification (what you
have and what you know), and, I'd argue, sufficiently so that the other
corner isn't needed.
These are address lists not mailinglists. Mailinglists impose that
there is a manager for the list.
OK, thank you for the correction.
Its a fairly significant point, especially since determining the
difference between the two, let alone whether a given message originated
from one or the other is non-trivial in any auditable sense.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg