Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK

["Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>]

Ok, that's the theory.

In practice, developers who will have the ultimate decision to implement or
more suite of proposals, will also need to also consider the marketing
pressure to support what will be the law.  That will be a fact.

If proposal Y covers CAN-SPAM, it will be used over Proposal X which does
not.

Of course, it should be obvious that a proposal that covers CAN-SPAM return
address requirements will also include the proposal (or similar concepts)
that only works at the lower level.

The potential problem I see with any proposal that does not support CAN-SPAM
requirements is that it opens the legal door for CAN-SPAM compliant spammers
to legally sue those systems that are rejecting mail using non-CAN-SPAM
methods.

Again, I have not read the CAN-SPAM bill yet, but I believe I also read
(here) that the bill stated mail systems must be IETF compliant.  No?

If so, that's good, because that means that LMAP is CAN-SPAM ready once the
IETF adds LMAP as a STD specification, not RFC specification.

Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and restrictions but
it also gives spammers the legal authority to send spam and if a mail system
is rejecting/filtering mail using non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can
potentially opens Pandora's box.

So in short, the answer is LMAP will be "CAN-SPAM Ready" once it is made a
IETF standard.  If it doesn't become a standard, developers, such as myself,
will use need to consider something else that is .   That's the bottom line.

It does look like LMAP has the blessing of many here and will become a
official IETF standard.  So I don't see a problem.

Thanks for your input Phillip.

-- Hector


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philip Miller" <millenix@zemos.net>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Cc: <asrg@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK


> Hector Santos wrote:
> > In short, is LMAP CAN-SPAM Ready?
>
> In short, LMAP has nothing to do with CAN-SPAM. CAN-SPAM has various
> requirements. LMAP would be a good thing regardless of any legislative
> approach, because it allows perfect enforcement of a domain's stated
policy
> without legal support. Perhaps it could boost the efficacy of CAN-SPAM,
but
> it doesn't address that in any way, nor should it.
>
> Philip Miller
>
>



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