Kee Hinckley wrote:
At 8:39 AM -0400 9/25/03, eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com wrote:
.......
Anyway. One of the major issues in looking at consent is that there is
a gap in the verification process. When a customer hands a list to a
bulk sender there is no way currently to verify that the customer has in
fact followed any BCP for consent.
........
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.
>........
I would like to use this thread for defining what consent actually
means. The ASRG charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) states:
"The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent
across different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize
the problem into "consent-based communication". This means that an
individual or organization should be able to express consent or lack of
consent for certain communication and have the architecture support
those desires."
It seems that there are two different aspects of consent: consent
between the two parties in the real world, and how those decisions are
expressed by machines. We need to define both of these.
Additionally, the charter states:
"The research group will investigate the feasibility of: (1) a single
architecture that supports this and (2) a framework that allows
different systems to be plugged in to provide different pieces of the
solution. "
We also need to determine whether it is viable to have a consent-based
architecture such as the one defined in the consent framework
(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html).
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg