Subject: RE: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of solutio ns, including some new items)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:48:27 -0800

I think Vern's point can be generalized.

If only 20% of the spam being generated is being generated by people who
should know better and are likely to respond to best practices type
approaches then it is a worthwhile exercise to address that 20%.

There is certainly a hard core of thugs and murderers who use spam as part
of their 419 extortion rackets that are not going to listen, but the spam
from those quarters already has a very distinct signal.

What we need to avoid at all costs is a situation where people start to
believe the propaganda from the spam senders, that it is alright to do this
stuff and that pretty soon every F500 will act that way.

I strongly suspect that the biggest spam scam is when the spam hauses take
money from their customers claiming that spam works. 

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vern Paxson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:32 PM
> To: Liudvikas Bukys
> Cc: [email-masked]; Paul Judge
> Subject: "Consent" and the charter (Re: [Asrg] re: taxonomy of
> solutions, including some new items)
> 
> 
> > ** consent verification
> > 
> > 	When I saw the ASRG charter, I leaped to the conclusion that a
> > 	consent model would be useful for two reasons:	(1) to 
> contribute
> > 	to a rigorous careful discussion, and (2) to produce human- and
> > 	machine-readable representations of consent that would be useful
> > 	for such things as:
> > 	- reducing the "I didn't know any better" gray-area excuse of
> > 	  spammers regarding opt-in, opt-out, and database reselling
> > 	- making life better for users by causing practices to 
> converge on
> > 	  consent that is explicit, self-documenting and 
> user-accessible,
> > 	  establishing standardized representations (similar to DSNs),
> > 	  and offering choices that are "good enough" but much lighter-
> > 	  weight than, say, PKI.
> > 
> > 	Is this what the chair was thinking?
> 
> If by chair you mean the IRTF chair, then somewhat.  The 
> emphasis on consent
> in the charter was an attempt to frame the effort in terms of 
> high-level
> goals rather than particular mechanisms.  The notion of 
> producing human/
> machine-readable representations of consent is certainly 
> within scope, but
> so are schemes that incorporate consent without such representations.
> 
> 		Vern  (speaking as IRTF chair)
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg