Re: [Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple

["Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org>]

"Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com> wrote:
> > The sender always "consents" to send the mail (modulo accidents). So we
> > would never see mail that it is unlikely that the Sender MUA would work
> > in a way against the senders wishes. And it would be totalitarian indeed
> > if it did. 
> 
> I'm not sure that that's always the case.

  Take virus.  The email originator is often an individual with a
laptop, who *isn't* running mail/virus filters, so they're (0,*,*,*)
for viruses.  This allows the viruses to spam themselves to hundreds
of people.

  With a virus scanner installed, the originators are (-,*,*,*) for
that problem, and therefore don't contribute to the spam problem.

> As has been said earlier on this list, we need to identify the
> entities giving and seeking consent (and the precise nature of that
> consent?), Alans algebra works towards that. We also need to
> characterise the "communication". This may include consideration of
> endpoints (or other traffic characteristics - rate?) as well as
> content.

  I agree.  Without some kind of short-hand notation, we're left with
statements like "the originator failed to indicate non-consent, the
MTA's had no opinion, and the recipient filtered out the email as spam
from a virus".  I find it (0,0,0,-) much simpler, and much more
definitively descriptive of the situation.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg