RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>]

Slight difference to the wording.

It should be clear what the person if opting out from. We don't have to
define spam, just the solicitations that they are opting out from.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric D. Williams [mailto:eric@infobro.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:43 PM
> To: 'Brad Templeton'; John R Levine
> Cc: william@elan.net; asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] Opt-Out Notes: too complicated, ignoring history
> 
> 
> Brad,
> 
> You make a good point for an additional requirement:
> 
> Requirement 7)  The proposal SHOULD describe a working definition of 
> Unsolicited, Solicited, Bulk and other terms used to describe 
> messaging 
> commonly referred to as SPAM.
> 
> Eric
> 
> On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:33 AM, Brad Templeton 
> [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] 
> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > On the nearly-technical side, I am also concerned about how 
> much success
> > there will be in defining the terms.  Some what Solicited 
> to be implied on a 
> pre-
> > existing relationship (possibly with a "respect unsubscribe 
> requests" rule) 
> and others
> > want solicited to mean explicit subscription.  I would hope 
> they can be
> > reconciled.  And there are arguments on bulk in either case 
> and where the
> > cutoff should be, though in truth all low cutoffs are 
> probably enough to
> > solve the spam problem -- if they were obeyed.   Alas, I 
> have poor faith on 
> any
> > of this being obeyed.   As you know, a significant fraction 
> of the spam
> > sent today is already illegal under non-spam laws --- 
> fraud, illegal medical
> > sales and all the rest -- so I see little hope in those 
> spammers obeying
> > the No-UBE sign we might hope to put up on our mailbox.
> >
> >
> > Back to the technical, I would still recommend that any 
> protocol defined
> > in this matter allow individual choice.  Thus an ability to 
> express desires
> > after a RCPT command, in addition to at the banner, with a 
> requirement that
> > new mail tools SHOULD support this while older ones may 
> only support the
> > banner.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asrg mailing list
> > Asrg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg