"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
That document needs to be expanded to talk about specific network
configurations used to deliver mail, which protocols are involved
where, and which fields of those protocols are open to what kind of
abuse. Once we have such a document, we can then proceed with
"solving the problem in diagram X, protocol Y, abuse of field Z".
Isn't email path verification in the domain of the msgtrk group?
Sure, but message tracking has nothing to do with prevention of
abuse. Message tracking includes a way of tracking down abuse among
*cooperating* entities, but even that tracking doesn't help when
spammers don't cooperate.
My reason for drawing network "tracking" diagrams for email is to
write down the problem we're trying to solve. Currently, the charter
is vague, and very unhelpful. Witness the huge volume on the list,
for the first few months. Most of that volume was caused by people
talking at cross purposes, because no one agreed on a problem
statement.
By drawing diagrams of entities & protocols in the network, we can
say "spammers are abusing diagram X, protocol Y, and field Z". We can
then come up with a solution which addresses that abuse, and doesn't
affect anything else in the network.
I'd like to raise a couple of issues with it as it stands:
"False Claims - regarding opt-in" duplicates "Inadequate opt-in"
"Not a real business" doesn't seem to mean anything.
Are we to solve the problem of consent to *business* communication,
or are we dealing with protocols on the Internet?
I believe that social issues (like lying about opt-in) should be
outside of the scope of this group. There's little to nothing we can
do to address those problems. And anything we CAN do to address those
problems will involve protocol changes on the net.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg