Claudio Telmon wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I think it may actually
have more chances when explicitly targeted to guard children, rather
than generically "non FUSSP".
I considered to use terms like "protected mailboxes", but at the end I
didn't like it, since it describes an expected effect (protection) and
not what is actually done (enabling the framework). Also, while the
"children" case is a clear one, I think that many other classes of users
could benefit from this option. I only used the term FUSSP in the
message to this list :)
What about "adult-assisted mailboxes"? Besides the fact that you could
adapt an MTA to do mixed enabled and non-enabled reception on the same
email address, if the two addresses correspond to different persons, a
child and a supervising adult, you don't have to. Targeting children
does not necessarily imply that adults refrain to self assist
themselves, if they like.
Having a clear case would help working out the specification details
that are currently missing. (How much software is needed? What exactly
should each piece of software do? Do both mailboxes have to be on the
same host? And the database? Etc.) In addition, it may help reckoning
a potential user base. Finally, anything that helps to protect the
children may get the attention of specific organizations.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg