At 04:29 PM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote:
> Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> > The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside
> > from Gordon's HTML blocking thread, there has been no
> > discussion of that.
> Not true... As Selby Hatch has already pointed out, his proposal
> was focused on the consent issue. So are the various proposals that I've
> made for "license to send" and/or "single user addresses" (stuff like
> TMDA). See my first posting on 3-March -- one of the first in this
> group... Also, quite a number of the patents that I've listed at various
> times have been for "consent-based" systems of one form or another.
>
There is quite a common misaprehension (as I see it):
that systems which rely on "consent tokens" must solve the larger
problem of "consent based communication".
Correct.
Clearly, consent token based systems do seek to enforce the
recipients wish for consent based communication.
However, generally, I can chose to consent (or not) to receive any message
(or class of messages) that I can describe, and I can hope
that there exists an agency which will enforce my expressed policy.
This is not merely an academic point. The problem has been generalised
(this is a good thing), we should be able to form a general description
of the kind of things that might offer solutions.
There are seems to be two ways to deal with spam. One way, proposed by
Barry Shein and Eric Brunner, is by concentrating on the senders of spam,
and the network that carries it, and shut the senders down. These MAY
INCLUDE legal measures, low-level network detection, coordinated detection,
anti-DDOS tactics, etc. The second way which is defined in the charter is
by looking at the receiver's end - and define a consent framework to be
used by receivers.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg