Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Carl Malamud <carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org>:
A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, which
should be coming out of the i-d queue adn. Source for the current
doc can always be found at:
http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/
Hmmm. Carl, should we be using the same class keywords, perhaps? It would
be a trivial change to my draft, as our categories are equivalent.
In fact, I see no good reason the "Sender-Keywords" header in my proposal
shouldn't become "Solicitation". Then my proposal would simply become
a requirement that commercial email MUST be labeled with the same keywords
in a Solicitation header as are specified in your MTA-labeling draft.
This would unify your MTA-labeling proposal with our proposed recommendation to
the FTC on CAN-SPAM labeling in a nice way. If and when both drafts become
RFCs, they can use the same IANA registry for solicitation keywords.
In fact, this is so obviously the right thing that I'm going to go do it to
my draft right now.
I hope this will mean that advocates of MTA labeling and spam-labeling
standards can get behind these proposals and cooperate rather than treating
these alternatives as exclusive.
Perhaps the two drafts should be merged together?
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord
Acton)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg