At 12:44 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
> We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam.
We don't have to do that. I propose merely that we encourage the blocking of
"spam-friendly" features by default in E-mail coming from senders that
haven't
previously arranged to send a given recipient e-mail of that type.
Once they're known to the recipient, and the recipient agrees to accept
bulkier
and more "fully-featured" e-mail from that sender, no problem.
But one should NEVER send such stuff unannounced to recipients, since those
recipients may not wish it, or may not be prepared to receive it.
> Rather than limit the types of email that we receive,
We're only proposing limiting what can be sent from UNTRUSTED SENDERS that we
HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED.
From the charter:
"The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across
different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the
problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual
or organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for
certain communication and have the architecture support those desires. "
We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. First
lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what goes into it.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg