Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to BCP - Clarification

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

>  When I wrote that "nobody would be complaining if spam primarily consisted
>
>  of Bloomingdale's catalogues and coupon val-paks" I didn't mean we wouldn't
>  complain if we recieved the same amount of spam but it was from legitimate
>  companies.  I meant that maybe 1% of my spam comes from legitimate
>  companies

I am not sure how this line of discussion relates to the proposed BCP, but
indeed discussions about spam need to distinguish between real companies that
are too aggressive, versus the folks that might politely be called rogue but
more usefully called criminal.  (Independent of whether they break laws, all of
their behaviors are that of a criminal, in terms of trying to bypass filters and
avoid accountability.)

Real companies need real and appropriate rules.  We might not like these
companies, but we can bring them under control.

Criminals, of course, need different methods.


So an attempt to bring this thread into some relevance for the Last Call:

The methods in the draft BCP are intended to close some holes and improve
up-stream (source) accountability.  It's a small but necessary step towards
finding ways to develop trust, since trust begins with accountability.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf