Kee Hinckley wrote:
At 8:39 AM -0400 9/25/03, eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com wrote:
.........
EDW> This as well was changed in a later draft. Unfortunately, these
subsequent drafts were being discussed off-list. The document which I
forward may be a closer fit to the ideals of the list at present.
BTW, more people are needed to work on this, can the volunteers step
forward?
Those two statements are related. I think if you want volunteers you
need to keep the discussion on list. It may make things more difficult
with side-tracks and interruptions, however it will generate more
interest and participation. (How much it will help find people to write
things up though, I don't know. Certainly my participation on this list
goes in waves, depending on my workload--that's not what you'd want from
a document owner.)
You are definatly right! I think that with the subject numbering system
SOME form of order is achieved, so there it is easier to follow then it
has been before. I will endeveor to keep discussions on-list as much as
possible. HOWEVER, as RFC 2014 states certain technical issues that
devolve into "rat holes" would have to be decided off-list.
Also you have another fundamental problem. You've backed off to a level
of abstraction where agreement is possible--but that also means it's far
enough away from the problem that people don't see its relevance.
What would you suggest to remedy this problem?
My
personal feeling is that the most valuable thing that could come out of
this group is a strong statement of consent, with a particular goal of
defeating the U.S. Congress', and DMA's attempt to make opt-out the
standard model. We all know that won't work. But a united front from
the internet groups behind a common definition of what levels of consent
must be required would help. Along with that model, could come a set of
BCPs for senders, receivers, spam filters and ISPs. There are other
groups working on portions of that (see
http://www.isipp.org/standards.html, a document that came out of the
Summit I and Summit II conferences that brought major senders and
receivers together to talk about email deliverability). I think that
ASRG (in it's newer, mellower form) could contribute to that process.
Defining "consent" is a major issue, I will reply to that in a separate
posting.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg