This is yet another reason why a fine-grained permissions-based
approach, where the *recipient* can decide what E-mails they do and
do not want to receive (based on who the sender is, and what the mail
contains) is so decidedly the right way to pursue this problem.
So long as you are willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on an
e-mail infrastructure that accepts and stores terabytes of spam,
almost all of which will be discarded unread, and a fabuously complex
spam filter control panel that almost nobody will use, I suppose I
agree. If you want to continue getting mail for $20/mo forget it.
ISPs tell me that when they have crummy filters that leak a lot of
spam, people are constantly asking to be able to tune the filters.
When they have good filters that work, nobody asks for options. A
large cable ISP said it was dramatic how the calls just stopped when
they switched from an old filter to a new one.
Especially with threats of attorneys et al,
Could you be specific what threats of attorneys you're referring to?
If you're in the United States, please consider them in relation to 47
USC 230 and section 8(c) of CAN SPAM.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg