I have a number of friends who regularly send technical articles to me
from publications. These typically show up in my inbox with the title
of
the article. So far so good.
Now, one publication puts its own email address as the return address,
so if I were to reply, my reply would go to the publication and not the
sender. Others send the reply with the return address of the sender.
I might well have a consent agreement with jsmith, so as far as I am
concerned mail that comes to me from the magazine under his name would
be acceptable - even desired. General mail from the magazine
(solicitations, etc.) is not acceptable.
Have we considered in our consent framework the ability to have trusted
mail that has been sent under the auspices of one person, even though
the actual source of the content is from an entirely different source?
I think we're working on the assumption that the most recent
sender/forwarder is the entity that needs to be trusted.
But in that case, why do one publisher's articles have the magazine's
return address on them, if jsmith sent the mail? It sounds to me as
though jsmith has hit a button saying "send a friend this article",
rather than forwarding it himself. In that case, it's very difficult
to build a strong trust relationship of any kind (without permitting a
lot more mail from the publisher than you might intend), but a hashcash
token might be sufficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi(_at_)chromatix(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg