At 07:53 AM 6/27/2003 +0100, Jon Kyme wrote:
> >I don't believe that this adds up to what you claim.
> >
> >There was some more fundamental (but probably premature)
> >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group.
>
> The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's
> HTML
> blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that.
You might be interested in the threads starting with
<E18r0iB-0000Ci-00(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org> "[Asrg] The Consent
4-Tuple"
and
Original message at
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00669.html
<E18sKmk-00009r-00(_at_)argon(_dot_)connect(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> "[Asrg] What
would consent look
like?"
Original message at
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01022.html:
---snip---
Consent might look something like this:
applies-to: user(_at_)domain(_dot_)example
classes: set of message classifications
access: allow | deny
scope: local | organisational | global
---snip---
And
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg