Dennis Gearon wrote:
Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Jon Kyme wrote:
Wouldn't a standard way of communicating consent between the MUA
and MTA
help?
I think it eventually has to come down to an access list, IF someone
wants to keep spam down in their inbox.
And that means that email is at first part of a communication
relationship, a secondary medium. Telephone, letter, and in person
methods will be used for initial validation. "Hey Joe, I want to be able
to contact you by email, will you put me on your access list, OK?"
Anyone got any real objections to that assumption?
I think a lot of people have that objection. Someone has told me
off-list that this assumption has been one of the biggest problems with
the ASRG's charter and the notion of consent in it:
<snip>
You don't need advance consent to communicate with people. Consent can
be revoked, but we would oppose any systems that retract it in advance.
In free societies unsolicited communication is allowed.
<snip>
Keep in mind that the consent framework does not assume that. Rather
this option is left to the implementors. Some existing systems such as
C/R already have that assumption.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg