Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Consent Model

From: Andrew Akehurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:15:03 +0100 (BST)

>> ........
>> In the ultimate scenario where everyone uses some implementation of
>> this consent framework it would be fine to make no distinction. However
>> for the purposes of interoperability with non-compliant systems during
>> roll-out of the new consent framework
>> ........
 
> The "new" consent framework is not replacing the current structure of
> the Net. It is an ABSTRACT model that allows us to evaluate all anti-spam 
> proposals. 

I understand, all that I meant was that implementations will have to consider 
interoperability issues. I take it you feel that interoperability is not 
relevant to the model itself, only to specific proposals? 

That would make some sense, but we are still proposing a change to current 
behaviour in that we have new reasons why messages may not be delivered to 
their intended recipient (i.e. lack of consent). Therefore some messages which 
would have been delivered under the existing system will not be delivered under 
implementations of the consent framework.

Since you say the purpose of the framework is to evaluate anti-spam proposals, 
one of the criteria should be the likely impact on existing usage and 
interaction between existing users and those who have migrated to consent-based 
software. Some of that detail will depend on implementation, but some abstract 
ideas are so fundamentally different from the current system that *any* 
implementation of them would affect interoperability.

Of course I know there are already many reasons why e-mail may not arrive under 
the current open system, such as an invalid recipient e-mail address or a lack 
of disk space at the receiver's incoming mail server. So maybe this issue is 
less important (to the abstract model) than I first thought.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your comments about the issue.

> it focuses on the giving the receiver power over his 
> email. However, this would remain running within SMTP as it is today
> until SMTP is replaced with something else (if ever). However, since many
> people believe the nature of the spam to be tied to the open nature of the 
> Internet, that would mean that spam will always remain a problem and 
> consent systems will simply provide the tools for dealing with the
> problem on the receiver's side.

Fine by me. Thanks for the clarification...

Andrew

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