Re: 3. Requirements - Consent (was Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Requirementsdocument)

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@solidmatrix.com>]

Dennis Gearon wrote:

> Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>
> > Jon Kyme wrote:
> >
> > > > > Wouldn't a standard way of communicating consent between the MUA 
> > > > > and MTA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > help?
> I think it eventually has to come down to an access list, IF someone 
> wants to keep spam down in their inbox.
>
> And that means that email is at first part of a communication 
> relationship,  a secondary medium. Telephone, letter, and in person 
> methods will be used for initial validation. "Hey Joe, I want to be able 
> to contact you by email, will you put me on your access list, OK?" 
> Anyone got any real objections to that assumption?
I think a lot of people have that objection. Someone has told me 
off-list that this assumption has been one of the biggest problems with 
the ASRG's charter and the notion of consent in it:

<snip>
You don't need advance consent to communicate with people. Consent can 
be revoked, but we would oppose any systems that retract it in advance. 
In free societies unsolicited communication is allowed.
<snip>

Keep in mind that the consent framework does not assume that. Rather 
this option is left to the implementors. Some existing systems such as 
C/R already have that assumption.


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