Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com>:
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.
John, you're being politically naive to a startling degree.
You're ignoring the reality that if CAN-SPAM passes, there *will* be a
spam-labeling standard. The question is only whether it will be a well-
designed one or a badly-designed one. If we "don't recommend", we'll
get one designed by a bureaucrat -- or, worse, a telemarketing lobbyist.
Let's not allow the ideal to be the enemy of the good, here. "NO UCE"
and MTA-labeling plus mandatory spam labeling will be better than
either alone. There's no reason IETF shouldn't push both approaches,
plus LMAP, and every reason for it to pursue all three.
We are being given an open opportunity to design a labeling system
that works well. What bill have you ever heard of that actually
*solicits IETF input*? We must *not* *blow* *this*. If we take the
technical prima-donna approach that we won't support or assist the
labeling requirement because it is not a hypothetical perfect
solution, we will throw away influence we might have had on future
antispam measures.
Passing up this opportunity would be stupid, stupid, *stupid*. That
truth is independent of the technical merits of my specific proposal,
or of any functionally similar one.
Matthew:
1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It
won't be enforced or effective.
California ain't the Feds.
2. Spam is theft. All spam.
True. So what?
3. Spam doesn't scale.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
4. It doesn't prohibit software whose purpose is creating or sending
email with FALSE OR MISLEADING TRANSMISSION INFORMATION.
Now *you're* being horribly naive. Haven't you learned anything from
the history of the DMCA, or for that matter the continued and
horrifying abuses of drug- firearms-, and porn-possession laws? Laws
that criminalize the possession of things, rather that specific
*behaviors*, are open invitations to abuse.
It would be incredibly dangerous to make spamming software illegal -- because
you can't control what an ignorant cop or power-seeking bureaucrat will
define as "spamming software". Want to go to jail for having a copy of
Mailman or majordomo? That's the future you're asking for.
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./
This doesn't appear to make any sense.
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?
Because they have different desires than you. It's not your business to
impose your criteria on *their* communication stream.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg