"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Are consent expressions only a means of carrying information from a
recipient-entity to a policy-enforcement-entity? Or are they for
publishing a statement to the world at large?
IMHO primarily the former, and almost certainly that will be developed
before the latter.
The latter need very careful consideration, as it could tip your hand to
a spammer re how to spoof his way onto your whitelist. Maybe if only
NO-consent rules are published?
Are sending systems (paid for by the sender) likely to do
policy-enforcement for a remote recipient?
Methinks not. Too much complexity added for too little benefit. Heck,
we have a hard enough time getting people not to post in HTML, even on
some lists of intelligent and clueful people.
Would a global expression still have utility even if not acted on
globally (as a record of the recipients policy)?
It could deflate claims of "we send this only to people we really think
will be interested in it". Other than that, I see no use.
Also, does a consent expression creator need means of determining
capabilities of the enforcement-agent that's the target of the
consent-expression?
Absolutely. He needs to know what's possible, lest he waste his time
writing rules that won't be enforced (not that that stops legislators).
Furthermore, he may need to know details of just how to state it, such
as the syntax for a boolean match.
--
David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer in the Washington DC area
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume and other information.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg