Re: 5c. Message Status - Re: [Asrg] ASRG work items

["Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com>]

>
>
VS>> >  - I think communicating consent is hopeless and even a bad idea.  
>> >   Advertisers will never entirely honor anything but "tell me more."
>> >   The only person who can be trusted to honor consent is the end user.
>
JK>> might *consult* my consent - including (in a particular order):
>> My organisation, my ISP, a legitimate mass mailer, the courts.
>
VS>The needs of the courts to determine your consent have nothing to do
>with network protocols, the IETF, or the IRTF.  That extreme case
>illustrates some problems with the other cases.
>

Sorry, what? Again the non sequitur. You imply consent expression is
useless.
I point out 4 examples of entities who might consult it. The needs of *any*
entity to consult consent are *clearly* a consideration in the formulation
of a consent expression framework (be it expressed through a network
protocol,
proposed through the IETF, the IRTF or written on a matchbook).


>> And why (I know I shouldn't bite) a "bad idea"?
>
>It's a bad idea because saying "ok, you're ok but no thanks" will get
>you more spam.  Any expression sent to almost any mass mailer, no
>matter how legitimate, is likely to be "checked," as in "6 months
>(weeks, days, or hours) ago you said you didn't want to hear everything
>from us.  surely you've changed your mind?"
>

Yes maybe - so they consult your consent again. 
Is there some problem with this?

I can only assume that you see problems (unspecified) with some
particular mechanism (unspecified) of consent expression - and then
make the logical false step which leads you to conclude that
consent expression in general must have those flaws.

This is bad reasoning, and makes for bad argument.






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