Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@solidmatrix.com>]

Alan DeKok wrote:
> "Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com> wrote:
..
> > "license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a
> > view on this.
> Many contracts involve the granting of license, if certain
> conditions are met.  You can have a contract without a license, and a
> license without a contract.  The software "click to agree" things are
> contracts, disguised as licenses.
If I remember correctly, "click through" licenses are not easily
enforceable without UCITA, which was only passed in two states in the
US. In any case, it is important to keep in mind that licenses and
contracts of this kind operate because of laws that are in place to
enforce them.

> In terms of SMTP, publishing recipient policy may be equivalent to
> giving license to people to use the recipients resources within that
> policy.  It does make it clear that senders NOT following the policy
> are forbidden from using the recipients resources.
This approach works in conjunction with legal enforcement and proper
laws, which is what the "no solicit" extension by Carl Malamud was
intended to be. This is important to keep in mind.

The hard question would be how to define policy elements that people can
agree on, which has been the sticking point until now. Even the elements
defined in Carl's draft, people had issues with. Some kind of a registry
would probably be needed.

Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the 
smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine)
-------


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