----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
Cc: <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>; <carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org>;
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension' to Proposed
I suspect lawmakers would be more sympathetic to the need for a NO
SOLICITATION sign to keep people from being disturbed, than for one to
computers from being disturbed. The actual recipients of the message can
avoid being disturbed by filtering mail, if the mail is required to be
labelled. The SMTP extension is just a way to do that more efficiently.
I see your point.
In CAN-SPAM, Section 10. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC
Item #2 says:
I believe this is from an earlier draft. Go reread the law as it was
actually passed by Congress. I don't see IETF mentioned in that law.
Basically as I read the law, IETF isn't in the loop, and there's no
expectation that any protocol extensions are needed.
hmmmm I thought I had a reference the most current bill when it was
finalized.. let me check again,
ok, I reference the wrong section. It is section 11.2.
SEC. 11. IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING REWARDS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT
(2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that
sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be
identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet
Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' in the
subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any
concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against
Still there Keith. You won't find acroymn IETF :-)
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.