Hi Eric -
I agree that the labels could share the same registry. But, one of the
things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about
what the labels are and how they are defined. It got bootstrapped
with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else
to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is
supposed to use them. So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable
with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail
MUST be labeled". Seems like that belongs in a law, not
a standard.
Do you think we can, in a proposed standard, require certain
types of content to be labeled, or might we be better off simply
specifying a carrier mechanism that can be used and let somebody
else do the requiring? Also, do you think asrg will reach
consensus in time to make a recommendation? Those people
in DC sure have a lean and mean operation compared to ours. :)
(BTW, I did both MTA protocol-level and header-level definitions
under the theory that even if you require a header, some
folks might forget to insert the label and, in that case,
perhaps an intermediate relay might step in to help
out via the trace fields ... in either case, the receiving
mua and the receiving mta's get to decide what to believe
and what to do with the message.)
Regards,
Carl
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.
--
<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