At 08:34 PM 5/2/03 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Barry Shein <bzs(_at_)world(_dot_)std(_dot_)com>
...
http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,80902,00.html?nlid=AM
Looks to me like a warmed over rehash of PGP signing maybe with some
SSL/TLS kind of stuff thrown in.
Plus content labeling.
...
So, apparently well-intentioned, but mostly redundant and orthogonal
to the actual problem it claims to have been designed for.
It's as well intentioned as TrustE's other effort.
Their whitepaper got me thinking about content labelling. Perhaps I
now understand why it sounds wrong to me. Let's assume that all mail
were properly labelled as "transaction," "advertising," "non-profit,"
"political," "personal and confidential" and any other categories you
like.
[snip happens]
I'm not even sure I'd want sender generated labels like "HTML".
If it's well defined enough to be used, then I can probably put it
on the mail myself with greater accuracy then the sender would.
So what do you think the "consent" in "consent based communication"
should mean if not consent to particular content?
Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg