Gordon Peterson wrote:
I think an important aspect of such a consent-based system
is precisely that the sender (or spammer or whoever) MUST
NOT BE ABLE TO INQUIRE IN ADVANCE regarding what (hypothetically)
would and would not be accepted.
I assume that any consent based system would provide you with a
means to determine just how widely your expressions of consent would be
diseminated. Thus, if you really don't want people to know what you
consent to, you would be able to ensure that they are left wondering.
Bob asks: "Gordon, can I send you mail?"
Gordon says: "I won't tell you. Try it and see."
Bob says: "I sent you mail, but got no reply. Does that
mean you're ignoring it, or was it rejected?"
Gordon says: "I won't tell you..."
Bob says: "Is this a Turing test?"
Actually, the solution I like best [...] periodically a
"digest" of suspected spam messages (say, one or two
lines each) is sent in an E-mail to the intended
recipient, so that they can vet them in a sort of triage
and ask their ISP to move false positives back into their
'to be delivered' queue.
While this may be a procedure that *you* are willing to endure,
I suggest that the average email user would find it much too burdensome.
It should also be noted that if any extraction of the incoming mail is
performed (i.e. "one or two lines each") you will inevitably have
problems since it may not be possible to ascertain the real purpose of
the message from the extract and it is also likely the spammers will
adjust their message composition style to take into account the
algorithm for constructing an extract.
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg