On Apr 3, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Laird Breyer wrote:
On Apr 03 2006, John Levine wrote:
To stay on topic, do you accept that with your definition, the
only authority which can reliably decide consent (and therefore
spamminess) is the receiver?
Not really. I get spam complaints all the time for mail from
lists that I know perfectly well that they signed up for and
confirmed. "Oh, I don't want that any more." For the ones that
aren't totally redacted, my setup turns them into unsubs so they
don't get any more mail for that particular list, but I don't
think it's fair to count mail as spam if it depends on reading the
recipient's mind in real-time.
Isn't that perilously close to saying that if they decided
something in the past, they're not allowed to change their mind?
This could be a case where the subscriber declares the list's email
as spam even though they failed to take steps to unsubscribe. There
might also be a problem created by lists that fail to confirm a
subscription as well. The lack of a confirmation step would be a bad
practice. Some have subscribed victims to lists and then send their
spam through the list when this confirmation step is missing.
My position is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the "spam
is what I say is spam" definition. It's workable, provided you keep
spam filtering at the ends of the network, ie the desktop.
There is no reason networks must endure abuse. At least refusal at
the SMTP session provides valuable feedback to the sender. Nothing
should force providers to adopt dangerous and unworkable "opt-out"
methods either. Fair rules can be established that _always_ consider
bulk unsolicited messages as abuse. This is a _simpler_ definition
that can be implemented in a fashion that protects resources. There
is no reason to waste the time of resources of billions of people to
achieve some nonsensical ideal.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg