Subject: RE: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression)

From: "Barclay, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:42:35 -0700

Sorry,
I think that both of the issues you point out below were more a lack of
clarity of expression on my part than a disagreement with your points. I
don't disagree with either of them. But from my point of view whether the
filtering happens in the MTA or the MUA is a secondary concern. My main
point was just that the email transaction system itself (whether SMTP is
extended, or a new protocol replaces it, or a new layer is placed on top of
it, or we just all start hiring singing messengers) should not itself
dictate whether any specific piece of mail should be accepted, but should
allow for the reliable transmission of sufficient information to allow
filtering decisions to be made at the end point of the transmission. 

The need to filter/monitor specific types of content for specific
environments seems out of scope of this process, except to say that it
should still be possible to do so. It seems unlikely that any globally
adopted set of rules for email would make it either much easier or much
harder to keep up with things like changing Securities and Exchange
Commission rules for financial services companies, or the myriad of HR
problems that can result from misuse of office email.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lewis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:50 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression)

Barclay, Robert wrote:

> Whether or not bulk email is treated differently than one to one 
> communication (and I think at least in transport it should not be) the 
> end goal should be for end users to have control over what email gets 
> into their In boxes right?

Right.  But, you're (a) conflating where the technology is placed (MTA 
versus MUA) with it being a user choice, and (b) ignoring fundamental 
differences between classes of "provider".

In (a), consider user choice implemented in the MTA, not the MUA.  Yes, 
the technology already exists to do that. It's highly beneficial - 
reduction of user bandwidth (think user on dialup line). Necessitating 
not only that scoring/marking/whatever goes on in the MTA, the refusal 
itself is done in the MTA.

In (b), consider us.  We're a corporation, not an ISP.  Corporate policy 
not only prohibits certain materials, but the law also forces us to 
block certain kinds of materials (specifically, workplace sexual 
harrassment legislation).  While the latter isn't spam per-se, it still 
is done using anti-spam techniques at the MTA level to prevent innocent 
end users getting bombarded by stuff they didn't ask for (which is what 
spam is).  [If non-spammed porn gets through to the end user, then it's 
an HR issue...]

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg