Re[2]: Why Spam is a problem

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re[2]: Why Spam is a problem
From: Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
In-reply-to: <000901c24516$860b9be0$1744903f@a>
References: <200208151751.g7FHpAf27339@astro.cs.utk.edu> <87y9b7r1qd.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3382666.1029452371@localhost> <v0422082db9826282f9bc@[192.168.1.14]> <000901c24516$860b9be0$1744903f@a>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:17:34 -0400 Bill Cunningham <billcu at CITYNET.NET> wrote:

> ...go into a business you may see a "No Soliciting" sign. This
> sign is
> backed up by law. I've never seen a "Soliciters are welcome here" sign.
> If MIME protocols had built in extensions that were the equivalant of a
> "No
> Soliciting" sign, and were backed up by law, could that work?

why in MIME?

why not revive the old proposal for NO UBE and other strings in SMTP
banners? it's better than numerous things that have shown up in proposed
legislation.

richard
--
Richard Welty                                         rwelty at averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking                                         518-573-7592
              Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

References:
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: Perry E. Metzger
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: John C Klensin
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: Einar Stefferud
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: Bill Cunningham

Prev by Date: RE: Why Spam is a problem
Next by Date: Why Spam is a Problem
Previous by thread: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Next by thread: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re[2]: Why Spam is a problem

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.