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

[David Maxwell <david@crlf.net>]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 06:27:40PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote:
> >>The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the
> >>costs are mostly borne by the recipient.  Everything else flows from
> >>that.  There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign
> >>and maybe not even then.  (By fix I mean move the actual location of
> >>the costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to
> >>artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.)
> 
> >is this ASRG policy now ?
> 
> Sure, I suppose so.  We're working on a new improved charter which
> isn't quite done, but I can promise that it doesn't contain the word
> "consent".

Does that mean that the equivalent intent will be shown, without using
the "C" word - or that the intent of the research group will change?

I found Consent to be a very useful concept in the analysis of spam.
What are the reasons for it dissapearing from the charter?

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> The only difference I see
between voodoo and marketing research is that voodoo sometimes works! 
						- Leonard Stern 



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