-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Hutzler
Sent: June 22, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Indiustry Alliance Publish Anti-Spam
Proposals
Carl,
You write,
"Wellllll, we kinda stayed away from the optin
optout debate. It is a hopeless debate and we
wanted to concentrate on the real criminals."
Personally, I don't think the debate is hopeless.
I think it is just a matter of will. I could give
a very eloquent speech on the point ...
... but let's move forward for a moment.
If I were sitting in ASTA's shoes, I would be
concerned that by putting forward the standards
ASTA did, it leaves the impression ASTA is
approving these standards, supporting UBE and in
fact inviting people to send UBE to their
networks.
Does this not debunk ASTAs efforts? Does it not
also expose ASTA members to a potential claim
being brought forward by a bulk mailer who in
essence says:
"I am in compliance with your guidelines why are
you refusing me access."
The service responds by saying ... "because we
can" ... and away we go to court.
The bulk mailer's lawyer waives the ASTA document
in front of the Judge and says:
"Judge, these folks told people what is required
and in fact my client has gone one better by not
only meeting this standard, but also complying
with all federal and state laws."
The service provider's lawyer trots out the
argument:
"we can decline service to anyone, because its
our hardware"
and the bulk mailer's lawyer responds by saying:
"... yes ... but the ASTA document is an
expression of policy ... meaning it was an
invitation to use your property providing we
complied with your standards."
I am not a lawyer, but if I was the CEO of
America Online, British Telecom, Comcast,
EarthLink, Microsoft, or Yahoo!, I would not want
to be exposed to this kind of risk.
Since you are saying ASTA wanted to stay away
from this debate and since presumably ASTA does
not want to leave the impression to their
customers they support UBE, why not simply remove
pages 14 to 15 of the report.
Also, I might suggest consideration be given to
removing that part of the report which urges ISPs
to adopt "report spam systems."
Why? It is generally understood these are
notorious for not reflecting the reality of the
situation.
Also, I gather they allow service providers who
use them to set very low receiving standards.
My understanding is AOL's practice is "we will
push the reject button when the spam complaint
level gets to roughly 1 out of every 500 messages
received."
Yahoo has done it differently and said, once we
receive more than 250 messages from the same
domain, the messages go to the bulk mail folder,
unless: (i) the sender is white listed by us; or
(ii) the recipient has white listed the sender.
Why should ASTA members expose themselves to the
potential criticism arising from these standards?
If the prime focus of ASTA is to go after the
hard core spammers, then would it not be better
to keep the document focused on that exercise?
Otherwise, quite honestly as now written does it
not expose ASTA to the potential charge:
'ISPs support spam, releases document approving
standards for spammers?'
I presume this is not the kind of headline the
CEO of America Online, British Telecom, Comcast,
EarthLink, Microsoft, or Yahoo! would like to see
on CNN for example, or on the front page of one
of the National Papers, such as the New York
Times.
How would the public respond?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am simply
applying the age old rule of public relations of
any large publicly trade company, which is ...
"how will this look on the front page of the New
York Times?"
As to the DMA, ESPC and MAPS, if ASTA does not
want to decide the debate, is it not better to
simply say:
"Look you guys need to sort out reasonable
standards that don't leave us open to the charge
that we are supporting spammers as understood by
the consumer.
Do that and we will talk again.
Until then, we are going to stay focused on our
objectives, apply our policies and not get
involved in your debate."
Personally, as I said above and earlier I
strongly believe Congress designed the CAN SPAM
Act of 2003 so that Internet access services
could solve one major aspect of the problem, if
folks want to exercise the will.
Also, there is another issue. It could be argued
the stance taken tends to make a mockery of the
position put forward in the US ISPA's comment to
the FTC on the DNE registry in which it stated in
essence "all responsible ISPs have policies which
prohibit the use of their networks for the
transmission of UBE."
But ...
Many folks (including myself) are grateful that
AOL was an early implementer. Through the efforts
of many, the stage has been set where ASTA is now
talking about across the board implementation of
sender authentication protocols and this is good.
John
P.S. Is it fair to say the indirect reference to
Yahoo!'s Domain Keys is in the document to get
all parties at the table?
At the same time, I also presume folks are aware
it would seem the FTC holds the whip hand in
wanting to see one standard for authentication?
Or is this a situation of "we shall see what we
shall see?"
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Wants To See One Standard For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/2004