Subject: [Asrg] two notes that went "down the wrong pipe"

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 11:53:19 -0400

<ritual line eater food>

sigh.

what follows are two notes i sent to namedroppers, rather than to this list,
owing to the similarity of superficial subject matter ("opt-in vs opt-out"),
and a lack of coffee and/or clue on my part.

for what it is worth, phill referenced an ftc report that is consistent with
the cdt report mentioned by the chair, that whois:43 is not a major source
of email addresses to which spam is targeted. phill's note was a reply to my
first note, and is available in the namedropper list archive, or directly
from phill. this was the context of my second note.

eric

------- Forwarded Message
[headers deleted]

("against" opt-in) ++

of course, another form of expression is that i think there is some possible
mechanisms that arise from policies that incorporate "informed prior consent"
into the requirements statement, which are not available if "ipc" is not a
requirement.

this may come as a surprise to phill, though not to ed. the provreg wg and
the iesg, in my own personal view, are divided by this very question, and
a non-trivial potential motivation for both camps there is the rasion d'etre
for this irtf tf -- spam (via whois:43 server data mining).

can the properties of data collectors be usefully characterized? there exists
at least one such attempt.

can the provisioning of end-point identifiers and other information which
tends to identify individuals, as well as other categories for which some
policies exist, be mediated by mechanisms which evaluate grammers which
characterize data collection practices? there exists several implementations
for at lesat one such grammer.

can collector evaluation mechanisms mitigate any part of this tf's problem
space? this is unknown.

it is worth keeping in mind that mechanisms which rely upon recipient or
relay properties, e.g., "consent", "content", "dnsbl", ... do not exhaust
the mechanism-space.

i mentioned that another approach exists, but that it seems to me to be
inaccessible to the ietf, and not from ipr reasons.

\begin{note-to-chair-hat-on}

it might be useful to split this shouting match into working groups.
the din is attrocious, the posturing rediculous, and the disincentive
to work tremendous.

\end{note-to-chair-hat-on}

cheers,
eric

------- End of Forwarded Message

------- Forwarded Message
[headers deleted]

<ritual line eater food>

the result (spam arising from whois:43 mining non-dominant, from http:80,
from smtp:25, from irc:6667 mining, dominant), is ... er ... not registry
provisioning protocol- and/or ICANN-deck-chair-migration-centric.

having worked for an ad network line-of-business (engage, 2000) on the
issues of pii acquisition, policies and mechanisms relevant to same, the
FTC result cited is consistent with my understanding of the problem.

jumping to niche-specific cure (not a discussion of phill's pre-coffee, mine
at least, purpose-specific, authenticated-relay, authenticated-envelope fix)
is not an exhaustive examination of whether it is useful to the problem at
hand for collector evaluation mechanisms to augment existing mechanisms.

eric

------- End of Forwarded Message

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