Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Requirements document

Hi,

FIRST, I will be away for a few days and will try to answer this in 
detail when I get back.
SECOND, off hand I think this fits within the consent model that the 
group has been chartered to create expect with several restrictions such 
as no communications with the senders re: consent, and no 
standardization. I think that a small document summarizing your thoughts 
would serve as a useful tool around which we can center the discussion.
Yakov


gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:

> > How would you suggest that recipients would go about granting and 
> denying permissions (or consent) if there are no standards in place? 
>
> I think that that is an issue to be described by the documentation for the 
> software involved, and/or the online help files that accompany it.  I don't 
> think there needs to be ANY worldwide consensus on how that needs to be done.
> What's more, it might well be COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to our case just as it's 
> counter-productive for so many people to be using the same Outlook and Outlook 
> Express E-mail clients;  it just gives spammers a common, familiar base to find 
> and exploit "universal" weaknesses in.
> Since in a "proper" (IMHO) recipient-chosen, recipient-controlled system there 
> is NO need for senders to interact directly with the recipient's chosen software 
> (other than just by existing SMTP/POP protocols) I don't think there's any 
> pressing need whatsoever for a worldwide permissions-and-control "standard" for 
> interacting globally with these programs.  I believe that the market itself will 
> sort these things out, to the extent the need to be, in a relatively short time.
> I think what's the MOST important is that we get SOMETHING out that 
> significantly helps the recipient users, and soon enough that it's still of 
> value to them.
>
> > Are you suggesting that the receiver simply chooses not to receive certain 
> kinds of email and that email starts to bounce? 
>
> I think the recipient ought to have the choice of how to deal with certain types 
> of messages.  "Bounce it" might be one option, although probably not a good one 
> since there are NO guarantees that there is even a valid POP3 mailbox at the 
> sender end (and even so, that it's possible to determine what that POP3 E-mail 
> address might be... clearly, a LOT of spam and viruses go out with forged/bogus 
> sender addresses, as we've seen recently).
> I believe that in general, either just t-canning (or holding in limbo for some 
> time period, pending triage and final resolution) is probably a better approach 
> overall.  I think that the best approach for most spam and virus mails, and with 
> ultimately the lowest total cost to the Net, is to simply route them all 
> (commensurate with the recipient's established and specified permissions rules) 
> down a black hole, and the sooner the better after they're sent.
>
> > If so, there is still a need to have some form of a format or standard in 
> place that the receiver can use to communicate his consent decisions to his MUA, 
> MTA or ISP.
> I don't think that that needs to be the result of a worldwide standard, in part 
> since the capabilities of different permissions list implementing systems are 
> likely to be VERY different, and may result in having quite different needs to 
> control those capabilities.
> For example, some of these filters might be implemented by Web-based tools, and 
> others might be based on E-mail-type control commands.  These two methods are 
> likely to be (even VERY!) different.  These are the types of things which 
> individual ISPs and software providers are likely to use for 'product 
> differentiation' that will give one ISP or software an edge over another.  I 
> don't think these NEED to be the result of a 'standards' effort.
> Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
> 1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
> Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
> 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg