Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:46:53PM -0000, Tom Thomson wrote:
What do you mean by "subjectivity"? Are you are saying that there are
greater elements of subjectivity if the service manager publishes a
definition than if he fails to do so? I can't see what else what you wrote
can mean, but I also can't actually believe you really meant that.
I don't know if it is what Philip meant, but I understood it that way that
such a system has to have hard rules and only these rules decide about
inclusion or not. Addons like "but we may not include you if we don't like
the name of your company, even if all the other rules are fulfilled" in
inacceptable.
That's exactly what I meant. It was an echo of sentiments expressed by
others here.
Why does an accreditation service have to include all emailers? If I have
have hard rules for inclusion, surely those hard rules can exclude people?
If they can't, the "hard rules" you say the system must have are actually
impotent and there's no point in having them.
The rules should not separate spammers from non-spammers per inclusion
but allow inclusion of all and thus provide authentication. You then can
have blacklist based on the authenticated data.
Exactly my point. I didn't say a list has to include all email users, but
all those in compliance with the rules for inclusion, spammer or not.
Think SSL/TLS: Everyone can buy a certificate signed by a CA as long
as the domain/server he wants to buy it for is theirs and they can
authenticate themselves via official documents like a company register
or something like that. This authenticates the host, but it does not
rate him good or bad.
However it is easier and safer for e.g. the receiver to build a blacklist
based on this authenticated data.
So the reputation/accreditation system should be open to everyone.
My personal opinion is that there are much lighter-weight ways to do
authentication for this purpose, but I figure that if people are going to
make these lists, then they should be on sound technical footing, and hard
rules are one facets of that.
depends what you mean by "international". There have been attempts to get
US/EU agreement on the topic, but they have failed because the US side
doesn't want to do anything that might actually stop the spammers from
spamming. The EU seems to be quite successful in promoting bilateral
agreements on this topic with countries other than the US. Agreements
withing the EU and bilateral agreements between the EU and other parties are
"international" by most definitions of the term.
*lol*
The EU doesn't even manage to get the agreement ratified by all it's
member countries. Sad to say that but even my government hasn't ratified
the EU directive whose deadline has been sometime last year.
I haven't yet seen any agreements of the EU with other non-EU countries
regarding spam.
And sorry, providing a link for opt-out is not a solution to spam.
And IANAL but IMHO the demand for providing a opt-out possibility does
not include that a spammer must honor the request.
What the governments try is to kid all joe users because the pressure
from the indutry and their clueless marketing departments is so strong
that they will never decide something that will cause them disprofit.
And some companies that cry out loud and complain about spam are
spammers themselves.
So it is better not to trust on political help to solve the problem.
Thank you Markus, you made that point much more effectively than I could.
Philip Miller
\Maex
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg