A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, found at:
http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/
The problem I have with the various NO-SOLICIT / NO-UCE proposals that have
been made over the years is that they seem to imply that a system /
recipient accepts UCE / solicitations *by* *default* unless it gives the
sender notice. And that a sender will assume it's doing nothing "wrong" if
it isn't given any such notice. It strikes me that this is completely
contrary to the direction of this group (and the law in many
jurisdictions). A recipient does not give implicit consent to any
communication by not expressly denying it, any more that I accept that you
can shoot me because I don't wear a T-shirt saying "No-Shooting".
This particular no-solicit proposal has been elaborated to produce a rather
coarse and inflexible recipient consent-expression system.
I'm sure that most contributors and the chairs would agree that:
1. Most email recipients do not believe that they implicitly consent to all
communications that they don't explicitly reject.
This group shouldn't support any proposal which goes against this in any
way.
2. Any consent expression system will need to be flexible and extensible if
it's to be useful.
Labelling the message (not the SMTP transaction) may be useful in enabling
enforcement of recipient (or system) policy. This is the kind of thing that
we're chartered to do, I believe.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg