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.
What does this mean?
If you don't know, it means you should go do your homework so you have
some familiarity with the past five years of anti-spam work. Sheesh.
Please don't be so fast to "sheesh" until you've *read* the message you're
replying to. I'd be grateful if you'd address the serious concern I
expressed. To avoid misunderstanding I'll quote it here:
<quote>
What does this mean? 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 have other users who are more normal, so should I have NO
UCE (FOR THE MOST PART) in my banners? Or what? This proposition is
contrary to the recipient-consent basis that this group is chartered on.
I'm very surprised that it should be proffered by one of the co-chairs.
</quote>
To clarify, I'm well aware of the history of suggestions regarding "NO UCE"
(etc) expressions in MTA banners. My concern is that these can have very
little to do with enabling individual recipient consent. I'm more concerned
that John doesn't seem to appreciate this - I would have expected him to
familiarise himself with the direction of the group. I'm also concerned
that he chooses to reply in this hasty manner. I'm sure he'll be happy to
reconsider.
Regards,
JK
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg