Folks,
DF> Use your ISPs mail server as a smart host and get over it.
DF> If users can't have the help of their ISP to deter spam, they will be
DF> greatly disadvantaged in the fight against it.
DF> The "consent model" model means you need the consent of the user to send
DF> them mail. They need to be free to have help making the decision to accept
DF> mail, from their ISP or others. Merely delegating responsibility to
DF> another is not a loss of freedom, for them, or for you.
The phrase "kill it, to save it" has more relevance to this line of
thinking than people seem to realize. So is the word "Procrustean".
The model being pursued might work adequately for some styles of human
interaction, but it will not work for others.
The average consumer's email use is with a stable, limited number of
people. For that sort of scenario, the considerable delay and hassle of
prior-consent might be ok.
However many people have a highly dynamic range of contacts and they
have highly variable connectivity. And the role of spontaneous contact
is an integral part of many human activities. Requiring prior consent
essentially kills all of these.
And, by the way, requiring that everything be done through one's "ISP"
presumes that that is both feasible and acceptably convenient. It often
isn't. Mobility, multiple providers, multiple platforms, etc., cause
simplistic service models fail miserably.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg