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.
The CAN SPAM act, already in effect in the US, tells the FTC to study
both spam tagging and a do-not-spam list. This gives them advice on
the least bad way to do those things, avoiding both junk added to mail
headers and a centralized list of people who don't want spam.
It requires that senders, to be compliant with every possible
national law, check their mail against each and every registered
keyword.
The alternative is for each country to make up its own rules, many of
which will likely contradict each other. For example, Korean law says
that the subject line in spam has to start with the Korean word for
advertisement, while the US rule will probably be for ADV: or ADV:ADLT
at the beginning of the subject line. The same subject line can't
simultaneously be in Korean and English.
I believe that the acceptance of this proposal would be harmful to
the operation of the global mail transport system.
If you think that the lack of a standard is going to keep governments
from passing laws, I think you greatly overestimate our influence.
I dislike the per-recipient stuff in Carl's draft, and based on some
discussions with him, I don't think he's all that crazy about it
either. But if someone demands per-recipient granularity in spam
acceptance, that's how you'd do it.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg