Subject: Re: [Asrg] AOL vs the Internet -- Are they opting out? (fwd)

From: "John Fenley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:38:38 -0600

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
>I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Establishing mutual
>consent is NOT about ensuring "legitimate" behaviour, and it's NOT
>about enforcing that behaviour. It's about the sender being able to
>make statements about his behaviour, and the recipient being able to
>choose to stop communicating with the sender when his actions don't
>match his words.

Hey that's a great idea!
What if there was a system that could allow that to happen....wish I’d 
thought of that.
Oh wait...

John Fenley
www.Choicelist.com

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:56:20 -0400

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Someone has issues when sending HMTL-encoded email, but no issues when
> sending ASCII-based email.  Hence, let's eliminate all multi-font,
> formatted email.

  I don't recall ever supporting such a position.  I think it would be
stupid to ban HTML email for that reason (though I hate it, myself).

> Or perhaps we are looking at secondary issues that have some near-term
> correlation but a) will not be effective very long or at all, and b)
> have very nasty collateral damage, such as restricting basic, legitimate
> human use and communication choices.

  The issue that ISP's are doing stupid things, and are refusing to
allow senders to communicate consent is an issue solely for a BCP
document on good network behaviour.

  This is where I think our main conflict is: You're focussed on the
concept that some stupid ISP's don't allow the exchange or enforcement
of consent.

  I agree that's a problem, but I don't see how a solution to that
problem would ever involve the rest of the net (other than as BCP).
It's a matter between the ISP and the customer.  And I don't see how
it affects ASRG, other than that any proposals should make a statement
about "stupid, but common, ISP behaviour X will interfere negatively
with the implementation or use of this proposal."

  It's just one more item to take into account when comparing
solutions.  Cost, design, implementation, roll-out time, and common
practices are all part of the analysis of any proposal.

> We need to be rather less cavalier about dismissing these
> "side-effects".

  I have never once proposed any of these restrictions.  Instead, I
have consistently opposed them.  So I'm at a loss for why you're
implying I (or anyone) is "cavalier" about dismissing these
"side-effects".

> The nature of all this support for login-based access control is the
> believe that it will, somehow, reduce spam.  It will reduce some kinds,
> perhaps, but it will have no effect overall.

  Then I'm sorry, but you have totally misunderstood my position.  At
no time have I ever suggested that login-based access control will
reduce spam.  It won't.

  What I *have* suggested, repeatedly, is that ISP's have information
currently available to them about their users, which will allow them
to better express or exchange consent with other users on the net.
Many ISP's do not currently use this information.

  e.g. Blocking outbound traffic on port 25, rather than exchanging
and enforcing consentual use of that port.

  We're here to *fix* those broken consent systems.

> As I said, it involves different administrations.  You were nicely
> citing use of a single ISP globally.  That's fine for you, but not a
> reasonable requirement to enforce on everyone who roams.

  <sigh> Then you misunderstood my message.  The statement that I
SOMETIMES use the services of a global company doesn't mean that I
ALWAYS use those services, or that I believe it's a requirement for
EVERYONE to use those services.

  Alan DeKok.