On 11/28/2003 5:50 PM, John R Levine sent forth electrons to convey:
I think we should probably say that we don't recommend a spam labelling
standard. I'd rather concentrate on NO UCE and labelling for MTAs that
don't accept spam.
Seconded.
We must respond without providing any legitimacy whatsoever to the bill.
A simple reponse like ESR's doesn't do that, so I oppose it.
I'd like to see an abstract hitting the strongest points, followed by a
detailed, damning explanation why it's unacceptable.
1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It
won't be enforced or effective.
2. Spam is theft. All spam.
3. Spam doesn't scale.
4. It doesn't prohibit software whose purpose is creating or sending
email with FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.
5. A standard that self-identifies "/commercial electronic //mail//"
is highly counterproductive; the IETF MUST NOT create such a
standard, one that self-identifies UCE could be useful. I
personally don't see any email sent to me with text required by
various state antispam laws in the Subject./
6. What's needed is a law like that which is known to work: the one
against junk faxes.
7. It's about consent, not content. ...
Apropos the do-not-spam list, we shouldn't support it either, for cause
(namely no effective enforcement mechanism in law), but should state how
it should work if it's going to be attempted over our objection:
End users must be able to submit standard one way hashes of email
addresses and domains that do not wish to be spammed via the web or
email, at their option. Thus the list of hashes becomes much less of a
target than a list of email addresses and domains. The company put in
charge of the list (AT&T is in charge of the do-not-call list, and has
abused its position) MUST NOT have access to the email addresses and
domains themselves. The list MUST NOT be an attractive prize for
spammers, particularly those who keep out of reach of US laws.
On 11/29/2003 1:58 AM, Jon Kyme sent forth electrons to convey:
I have users who wish to receive commercial email that
they haven't explicitly solicited. Does this mean I should have UCE PLEASE
in my banners?
I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by [Levine].
I suggest you not respect unethical wishes. They wish to aid and abet
criminal activity by patronizing these thieves; why else would they want it?
Spam is theft of service, don't you know? If you want to put UCE
PLEASE in your banners, do so, but don't expect anything but distain for
doing it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg