Claudio Telmon wrote:
Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
official contact addresses of companies.
In fact, at our domain, few of these kind of adresses aren't protected.
Most of them are adresses of the kind "everybody in the engineering
department" (addresses which are of internal use only) "butterfly
research workgroup" (a closed group working on some particular subject)
and so. These are adresses which *are* protected and the concept of
consent-enable is materialized by checking if the SMTP client sending
messages to is in some known network or if the connection was
authenticated. But nothing prevents that this kind of consent should be
expanded. Either way, in an organisation like the ours, users couldn't
understand that the same consent system used for individual addresses
couldn't be used for collective addresses.
This is a very interesting case. I'll have to think at the implications
of it.
You got the message ! 8-)
And as said Rich, I'm only pointing you points to taking into account.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg