On Jan 27, 10:54pm, Carl Malamud wrote:
}
} > Philip Miller wrote:
} > >
} > > It requires that senders, to be compliant
} > > with every possible national law, check their mail against each and
} > > every registered keyword.
}
} No, no, no. :) The draft provides a mechanism for the transport
} of solicitation class keywords. It does not say when a message is
} accepted or rejected, or when to send it, or anything else having
} to do with consent. If you want to assert a keyword (or are required
} to by a license agreement or other governing document), this is,
} imho, a much better mechanism than inserting them into subject
} headers, non-standard headers, or other mechanisms.
On Jan 28, 6:45am, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
}
} The legal standard you are trying to achieve here is constructive notice.
On Jan 28, 7:37am, wayne wrote:
}
} I confess that I haven't read the draft *real* closely, but can't a
} spammer just avoid seeing the "no solicitations" sign by using HELO
} instead of EHLO?
I have a related question/concern.
Suppose that this draft is published as a (proposed) standard.
Suppose further that the FTC actually does adopt it as the labeling
mechanism for commercial email.
Doesn't that effectively legislate that everyone who wishes to send
commercial email in any capacity, must immediately upgrade their mail
servers to something that supports ESMTP including this extension?
In which case, why propose it as an extension at all? It's effectively
scrapping the existing email system anyway; if you're going to legislate
that the infrastructure must be upgraded, you might as well choose a
better target for the end result of the upgrade.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg