Jon Kyme wrote:
AD wrote:
Currently, the charter
is vague, and very unhelpful.
I can't agree with that. Generalising the problem as a consent / policy /
enforcement thing means we don't start by talking about spam, spammers and
what spammers do. We just (!) need to identify opportunities for
(recipients) policy expression, transmission and enforcement in (or
alongside) the MTS. This isn't vague (it may not be what a lot of people
want to see) and I don't see why this can't be helpful.
It is hard to explain consent to someone when all the legal efforts are
talking about consent. People tend to misunderstand the concept.
However, I think that both of you are right - we need to look at what
spam and spammers do AND at how we start looking at the entire email
system as one with consent.
For instance, C/R and and other Consent-token schemes don't know anything
much about *spam* and the only thing they assume about *spammers* is that
the business model precludes the human or other resources required to get
through.
A filtering system based on the use of a filtering engine doesn't know
anything about the content of *spam* except that it differs somewhat from
*non-spam* (the particular engine used will know more than this).
Do you think that the current draft of the consent framework seems to be
heading in the right direction?
Draft: 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