Re: Last Call: 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension' to Proposed Stan

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 06:15:11 PST, Carl Malamud said:

> 1. The fact that esmtp had no way for the receiver to indicate
> that they don't want to be solicited.
> 2. The fact that our mail headers are being littered with
> insertions by filtering software and, increasingly with obscure
> markings like "ADV" required by policy makers.
I'm still puzzled by what problem we actually expect this to solve.

Is there a significant number of spammers that would actually take the
time to look for a No Soliciting marker, and actually abide by it?

Reading Section 3, there's a lot of uses of "reputable mailers", when
that's not the problem....

(Don't take the "We could pass a law banning the attempted bypass of
said banners" - given the number of spam that are outright fraud and
the lack of progress in enforcing existing laws, I don't see that as
being a useful direction.  So unless there's something more substantial
than "this time it will be different, I promise", a new law won't help).

pgpZPIKiZvmJ2.pgp
Description: PGP signature