On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:41PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote
This model assumes that users should be able to define what kind of email
they want to receive - this is refered to as "consent" . "Lack of consent"
is either when no prior consent existing or the users revoked their prior
consent. This model does not concern itself with defining what spam is
one person's spam message may be another's freedom of speech. Thus, we only
seek to define a framework to let users grant and deny consent, the rules
under which this process is done is best left to the implementors and the
users themselves.
I have one worry about this. The suggested model seems to center on
what type of email, rather than from who, the receiver is willing to
receive. First, I question whether one can come up with something
simple that'll specifically state that a consumer is looking for product
X (egg beater, lawn-mower, whatever). Secondly, even if this could be
accomplished, do I really want to risk getting email from several
thousand businesses around the planet who are legitimately responding to
my request? This is falling into the business/marketeering mindset of
"push"-marketing. If I want something, I'll ask, fer-cryin-out-loud.
In that case, my consent will be for company X to communicate with me.
Another reason for concentrating on *WHO* we receive from is that
corporate behaviour is remarkably consistent. One person mentioned in
another message the example of Roving Software getting one bad customer,
and being blocked. Guess what folks, Roving is blocked not only by a
DNSbls, but also by a lot of personal lists.
Lookups in Realtime Black Lists (RBLs)
***************************
I believe both the phrase and the acronym are trademarked by MAPS LLC.
The generic term is "DNS based list" (DNSbl would be the acronym). Note
that I did *NOT* say "DNS-based blocking list". A DNSbl can be used for
either blacklisting or whitelisting.
Open relay testing (MAPS, RBLs, etc.)
Trademarks again.
Detection of hacked computers (Dshield.org, etc.
******
"Compromised" is more appropriate.
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg