Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response

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

Brett Watson <famous-asrg@nutters.org>:
> I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of
> suggestions, of which the content-tagging tokens are only a small
> part. It would be better if the draft merely specified a *means* for
> those tokens to be incorporated, and the tokens themselves were
> externalised.

It's an appealing idea.  But:

(1) Right now, the draft is a complete and self-contained response to
CAN-SPAM 11.2.  I think it may be a bad idea tactically to split it 
apart.  Better to give the FTC one simple document when it comes time.

(2) The present vocabulary is not arbitrary, it is the categories 
*required* by CAN-SPAM.  So there's a case for any further vocabulary
extensions to be in a separate TS, but an equally strong case that these
belong in the base document.

(3) There's a coordination issue with Carl Malamud's NO-SOLICITATION
I-D.  I've just changed my draft to spell the header and keywords the
exact same way he does.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

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