Bill Cole <asrg(_at_)billmail(_dot_)scconsult(_dot_)com> writes:
[...]
The relevance of RSS is that it is a better alternative medium for
the people currently (mis)using email as a one-way broadcast medium,
without any mechanism for anything like spam. Much of the effort and
hand-wringing and arguing over spam control mechanisms is really
focused on not interfering with truly solicited broadcast email, and
RSS gives those senders an alternative which does not have any
exposure to side-effects of whatever might be retrofit onto email to
stop spam.
RSS is one, HTTP is another. The web browser that I use (and I
presume most others) provides a convenient way to automatically report
changes in specific web pages. If current spammers wanted to use
better mechanisms, they could just go ahead.
The reasons they don't are partly cost, but partly they use email
(presumably) *because* it's the wrong medium---like snail bulk
mailers, they want their commercial or other messages to look like
personal messages so that people are more likely to read them.
For the respectable end of the market (the confirmed opt-in, or
whatever the current phrase is), I agree completely---there's a space
for some use of RSS or something much more appropriate than email.
Actually, I suspect HTTP with perhaps some automated browser
configuration (to switch on monitoring of the relevant web page) would
be easier to get going. However, I suspect even that market wants
their valuable marketing messages to look like email, and so would
resist changing. It'll be interesting to see how successful ADV:
turns out to be in reality.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg