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?
I'm not the ftc, I don't sit in congress, and I don't enforce an aup
policy for an isp. But, if I were, I might say:
1. If you send any unsolicited bulk mail in class x, you must use
a solicitation: header.
2. If you do more than x messages per year, you must also use
esmtp and the no-soliciting 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.
Well, esmtp is pretty widely deployed and the effort to do a
simple extension like this is far from the effort to do an ng solution.
I think ng is the right answer, I just don't know what it is. :))
Even if the sender does not use esmtp, this extension might be quite
helpful once it has reached your own mail processing system: as a
customer, you might be running several dozen mail servers and if
those all speak esmtp, this facility might be useful.
Don't forget: my draft does not specify who has to use it or
how recipients should act when presented with various keywords.
This is simply a way for senders, mtas, and recipients to
assert keywords using a common mechanism.
Regards,
Carl
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg