At 12:37 PM 7/8/2003 +0100, Andrew Akehurst wrote:
Quoting Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>:
> At 01:54 AM 7/7/2003 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> 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.
... 8< ...
>
> I agree with you that CONSENT has not been defined properly, I am
> wondering
> how we should redefine it properly.Maybe something like this:
>
> CONSENT - an expression of wanting to receive email from a specific
> SENDER
> LACK OF CONSENT an expression of not wanting to receive email from a
> specific SENDER or absence of prior CONSENT for that SENDER
Are you saying we need not distinguish between a lack of prior consent and an
explicit desire not to receive e-mail from a particular sender? In the former
case, we don't know if the receiver wants messages from that sender or
not. In
the latter case we know for certain the receiver does not want messages from
that sender.
....
I think this point was mentioned before by someone else. We do need to
distinguish between lack of prior consent and express NON-consent. I
believe Paul McNeil stated them as follows:
1. CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting to receive email from a sender.
2. SOFT CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting to receive email from a
sender.
3. SOFT DENIED CONSENT - an indirect expression of wanting not to receive
email from a sender.
4. DENIED CONSENT - a direct expression of wanting not to receive email
from a sender.
> ........
>In the ultimate scenario where everyone uses some implementation of this
>consent framework it would be fine to make no distinction. However for the
>purposes of interoperability with non-compliant systems during roll-out
of the
>new consent framework
> ........
The "new" consent framework is not replacing the current structure of the
Net. It is an ABSTRACT model that allows us to evaluate all anti-spam
proposals. Also, it focuses on the giving the receiver power over his
email. However, this would remain running within SMTP as it is today until
SMTP is replaced with something else (if ever). However, since many people
believe the nature of the spam to be tied to the open nature of the
Internet, that would mean that spam will always remain a problem and
consent systems will simply provide the tools for dealing with the problem
on the receiver's side.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg