At 07:23 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Elric Pedder wrote:
> From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
> Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich
> Sent: July 7, 2003 17:24
> To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through
> Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF
> (http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html):
>
> ----snip----
> After years of divisive discussions, a very similar
> pledge/oath/policy was
> what EFF was able to come to agreement on:
>
> "Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam
> messages reach
> their intended recipients."
>
> Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the
> problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of
> overzealous anti-spam measures.
> ----snip----
I don't believe you can stop false positives -- if only because
people will have widely varying opinions on what SPAM (to them)
is. It is, however, very dangerous to allow false positives
because if anything the perceived "reliability" of the Internet
becomes compromised.
I would recommend
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all messages
either reach the intended recipient, or are returned to the
sender, or the sender notified."
How would this fit within the consent model? If a RECEIVER revokes consent
for a specific sender, then messages from that SENDER cannot be delivered?
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg