At 03:32 PM 6/20/2003 -0500, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
>We have no architecture in place for consent-based communications. First
>lets develop that architecture, and than we can decide what goes into it.
No, but we do have a well-established and longstanding convention that plain
ASCII text is the _most_ universal form of E-mail that EVERYBODY can read on
virtually ANY kind of device. It makes sense, until a sender knows that
other
types are also acceptable, to send in most widely readable and acceptable
format.
A while ago (June 3rd) Eric Williams published a draft list of requirements
for anti-spam solutions, below are some of those requirements. This
proposal does not fit under "2.3. Ease of Use", "2.7 Persistently
Effective", and "2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate
Mail". These are the issues that I would like to see addressed. As for a
"longstanding convention", due to the many MUAs sending HTML email, that
convention has been changed and now HTML email is acceptable.
---snip---
2.3 Ease of Use
The approach SHALL consider the ease of use for message system
managers, senders and recipients in all messaging situations.
2.3.1 Rationale:
For successful adoption by the user community proposals must
provide support for typical and atypical messaging situations
involving two or more parties. Many different correspondent
scenarios exist in the MTS a proposal which limits the ease of
messaging in existing scenarios will limit adoption.
2.7 Persistently Effective
The proposal SHOULD provide more than a step in an environment
of escalating countermeasures.
2.7.1 Rational:
Authors should consider the status quo concerning the
development and deployment of stop-gap measures a failure.
Solutions or research into the problem should present a
threat analysis with the threat(s) being addressed, protection
goals, possible countermeasures and defenses against those
countermeasures over the longest period possible or that
provably work forever.
2.8 Doesn't Interfere With The Delivery Of Legitimate Mail
The proposal MUST consider, address and keep at a minimum
impacts on [legitimate] messaging traffic within the MTS.
2.8.1 Rationale:
Proposals must consider the reasons for successful widespread
deployment of the current MTS: low latency, high
deliverability, scalability, functionality for multiple content
types, etc. Authors should develop proposals that minimize
impact in these critical areas for [legitimate] MTS uses. Thus
an optimal proposal will impact only [spam] and not
[legitimate] messaging traffic.
---snip---
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg