Re: [Asrg] 6. Propsals -- Labeling recommendations for the FTC

["Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>]

Mark E. Mallett <mem@mv.mv.com>:
> Would "ADV" matching be done before or after any charset conversion?

Can't be after -- your character set might wind up being one of the
wide-character CJK encodings, in which case you can't even write "ADV:".
Thanks for pointing out that this means some form of Keyword header 
is not optional; I will add a note to the Rationale.

> Also, would it be worth a sentence somewhere that says that the
> existence of this I-D (or RFC) in no way endorses any particular
> approach (I'm specifically thinking of the implication that suddenly
> opt-out has been sanctified).

I don't think we need to go there.  In fact, I'd prefer the RFC not 
talk about policy at all, just specify mechanisms.  Lees controversy
that way.

> While I am here: is there a current practice of any sort for a
> header that identifies the end-user filter program that the message
> has passed through?  e.g.   "X-Filtered-By:  spamanoid version 3.2" ?
> I seem to recall seeing one once, but haven't been able to locate it.

I don't know of any standard practice.  I had planned to write up such a 
proposal as part of this draft, but as that is not responsive to the
CAN-SPAM request it is really a separate topic.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

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