Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:18:40 -0800

> Yes.  These are the categories CAN-SPAM dsecribes as 
> "transactional and 
> relationship" mail.  They are explicitly exempted from the labeling
> requirement.

What I am thinking of here is the boundaries between the categories. I think
there is an element of subjectivity that can enter and that as a result a
binary statement ADV or not is not going to be very helpful.

What would make the scheme more robust is being able to identify the
transactional and permission based message empirically. So a spam filter
knows to expect that they will come from a small number of senders
authorized for that express purpose.

		Phill

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

---

From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:33:37 -0500

> binary statement ADV or not is not going to be very helpful.

Way better than nothing -- especially in combination with "Keyword: bulk"

Bear in mind the real purpose of this bill, which is to make it
legally possible to nail and jail the Viagra scammers and their ilk 
simply based on the fact that they're forging addresses etc.  

All the keyword-system design in the world won't have any impact on this
goal, because the crooks' incentives drive them to ignore the entire 
keyword system.  They won't even use the *simple* keywords I've proposed,
much less any complicated one.

> authorized for that express purpose.

You are the person who, in other contexts, is telling people not to try 
to reinvent the world to a grand plan.  Take your own advice!
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

---

From: "Chris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:15:48 +1030

> authorized for that express purpose.

Can I enquire as to whom you work for, you seem to have a purpose in your
comments