At 06:40 PM 6/19/2003 -0500, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
> Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML messages
in order to kill spam.
We don't sacrifice those AT ALL... ONLY the ability to send such [supposedly]
"legit" HTML-burdened messages UNSOLICITED, to those who have specifically
set
their E-mail accounts to NOT receive such mail from
unsolicited/unknown/untrusted senders.
WHOSE SUPPOSED RIGHTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT HERE, ANYHOW?
The users, as stated in the charter (emphasis added):
"The work of the ASRG will also include investigating techniques to
evaluate the usefulness and cost of proposed solutions. Usefulness is
described by the effectiveness, accuracy, and incentive structure of the
system. The cost of the system refers to the burden imposed on USERS and
operators of the communications system. "
I think it makes sense to put priority rights to those who are paying the
bills... and that's the recipients. They should have the power to turn
off such
bulky and unwanted crap, ESPECIALLY given the fact that they typically are
trying to work around limited-size ISP-provided inboxes and to keep them from
overflowing and bouncing the mail they DO want to receive.
Your underlying assumption is that spam will persist being HTML encoded. I
do not believe that it will take spammers too long to switch to plain ASCII.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg