Keith Moore wrote:
But at the conceptual level, being able to express and enforce _somehow_: Any consent has to be given from the receipient to the sender, and should be non-transferable and revokable at any time. is critical.
The context is bulk, not one-on-one email. With bulk, of course there is a way of giving consent. Subscribing/confirming to it.no, I think that's a non-starter. oh I suppose people can impose such constraints if they wish, but it basically means they'll never get any mail from somebody they don't know, because they have no way to give them consent.
From a definition of spam perspective (see subject line), it's definately the former.at the very least, let's recognize that the kind of consent you are talking about is different than a recipient giving consent to the mail system to do filtering on a recipient's behalf. and as I read the charter, it's talking about the latter.