At 02:15 PM 7/9/2003 +0100, Andrew Akehurst wrote:
>> ........
>> 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.
I understand, all that I meant was that implementations will have to consider
interoperability issues. I take it you feel that interoperability is not
relevant to the model itself, only to specific proposals?
That would make some sense, but we are still proposing a change to current
behaviour in that we have new reasons why messages may not be delivered to
their intended recipient (i.e. lack of consent). Therefore some messages
which
would have been delivered under the existing system will not be delivered
under
implementations of the consent framework.
Since you say the purpose of the framework is to evaluate anti-spam
proposals,
one of the criteria should be the likely impact on existing usage and
interaction between existing users and those who have migrated to
consent-based
software. Some of that detail will depend on implementation, but some
abstract
ideas are so fundamentally different from the current system that *any*
implementation of them would affect interoperability.
Of course I know there are already many reasons why e-mail may not arrive
under
the current open system, such as an invalid recipient e-mail address or a
lack
of disk space at the receiver's incoming mail server. So maybe this issue is
less important (to the abstract model) than I first thought.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your comments about the issue.
There is a separate requirements document
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05084.html)
outlining specific point-by-point requirements and a "Technical
Considerations" document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt)
which outlines more overall requirements. These are meanth to be used in
conjunction with the model document.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg