Philip Miller wrote:
- 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension '
<draft-malamud-no-soliciting-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
Promulgation of this document as an RFC would encode exactly what we
tried to avoid with our consent framework: content-specific solutions
that are open to definition wars, redefinition, and even worse,
cross-border legal wrangling. It requires that senders, to be compliant
with every possible national law, check their mail against each and
every registered keyword.
I believe that the acceptance of this proposal would be harmful to the
operation of the global mail transport system. However, I want to hear
some other opinions before submitting my comments to the IETF.
Also, should we, as a group, submit a collective opinion, which may
carry more weight than just our individual statements?
The current draft sets out that IESG or IANA should appoint a designated
expert to do these. This may provide some oversight. However, another
problem is that people might use it without going through the registry
and use that as a basis for a lawsuit anyway.
There is also another issue of exchanging policy information between
sending and receiving MTAs, which is related to what SPF is trying to do
as well with extensibility.
In any case, it would be useful to hear what the author has to say to these.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called
users?" (Clifford Stoll)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg