Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Requirements document

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

>> Wouldn't a standard way of communicating consent between the MUA and MTA
>help?
>
>I'm not convinced that we need anything beyond what we already have. (And
>non-compliant points in the path are STILL going to need to map any
>"extended
>result codes" to one of the current basic set of results anyhow).
>

Let's put it like this:

Would it be a "good thing" to reject unwanted mail as near the sender as
possible?
    yes / no

Will it be impossible (in most cases) for a recipient to directly configure
an upstream MTA
    yes / no

Will MUA / MTA be from a diverse set of vendors
    yes / no

If you answered mainly "yes" then you'll likely need a standards based
consent /policy expression do-dad.

If you answered mainly "no" then you'll need to think about the problem
more.


The "end-to-end consent" systems are particular cases of the general 
"consent in the MTS" question. If you don't believe that end-to-end consent
is workable or required (although the consent-token / proof-of-work / CR
crew will disagree with you) - you're still left with the general question.










--

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