Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
Someone has issues when sending HMTL-encoded email, but no issues when
sending ASCII-based email. Hence, let's eliminate all multi-font,
formatted email.
I don't recall ever supporting such a position. I think it would be
stupid to ban HTML email for that reason (though I hate it, myself).
Or perhaps we are looking at secondary issues that have some near-term
correlation but a) will not be effective very long or at all, and b)
have very nasty collateral damage, such as restricting basic, legitimate
human use and communication choices.
The issue that ISP's are doing stupid things, and are refusing to
allow senders to communicate consent is an issue solely for a BCP
document on good network behaviour.
This is where I think our main conflict is: You're focussed on the
concept that some stupid ISP's don't allow the exchange or enforcement
of consent.
I agree that's a problem, but I don't see how a solution to that
problem would ever involve the rest of the net (other than as BCP).
It's a matter between the ISP and the customer. And I don't see how
it affects ASRG, other than that any proposals should make a statement
about "stupid, but common, ISP behaviour X will interfere negatively
with the implementation or use of this proposal."
It's just one more item to take into account when comparing
solutions. Cost, design, implementation, roll-out time, and common
practices are all part of the analysis of any proposal.
We need to be rather less cavalier about dismissing these
"side-effects".
I have never once proposed any of these restrictions. Instead, I
have consistently opposed them. So I'm at a loss for why you're
implying I (or anyone) is "cavalier" about dismissing these
"side-effects".
The nature of all this support for login-based access control is the
believe that it will, somehow, reduce spam. It will reduce some kinds,
perhaps, but it will have no effect overall.
Then I'm sorry, but you have totally misunderstood my position. At
no time have I ever suggested that login-based access control will
reduce spam. It won't.
What I *have* suggested, repeatedly, is that ISP's have information
currently available to them about their users, which will allow them
to better express or exchange consent with other users on the net.
Many ISP's do not currently use this information.
e.g. Blocking outbound traffic on port 25, rather than exchanging
and enforcing consentual use of that port.
We're here to *fix* those broken consent systems.
As I said, it involves different administrations. You were nicely
citing use of a single ISP globally. That's fine for you, but not a
reasonable requirement to enforce on everyone who roams.
<sigh> Then you misunderstood my message. The statement that I
SOMETIMES use the services of a global company doesn't mean that I
ALWAYS use those services, or that I believe it's a requirement for
EVERYONE to use those services.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg