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

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

> let's confirm (or deny) a rough consensus on two
> issues:
> 1)True or false: the labeling requirement in S.877 will not result in 
> significant sender compliance.

Not being a purely technical issue, there are considerations (attitudes of
regulators, law enforcement, courts, jurisdictions inhabited by spammers /
spammer operations relocatability, etc) which make this question difficult
to answer (except by considering those things).
So as a start: What proportion of spam can be reliably attributed to
operators based in the US (or any other particular state). How committed
are the (for instance) US regulators / law enforcement to prosecuting?
How easy is it for a spammer to relocate? 

> 2)True or false: the labeling standard should speak of the bill's 
> deficiencies and/or the IETF's non-approval/endorsement.
> 

False. I'm not sure that it's wise to produce a technical document which
discusses the rights/wrongs of a particular bill (of a particular
jurisdiction). I'd be happier seeing a technical document referring to this
bill only as an *example* of the kind of legislation that a labelling
mechanism might support and discusses the strengths/weaknesses of the
mechanism proposed.

> I don't think these have been discussed, I don't think the ASRG has 
> exhausted its mandate on this topic; 

I agree.





--

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