Re: [Asrg] VPNs vs consent

[Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <[e-mail]>]

Claudio Telmon wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 
>> A brief check of my own procmail config indicates that I'm on over 500 of
>> these -- the overwhelming majority of which are role addresses such as
>> those specified in RFC 2142.  A secondary check indicates that about 3/4
>> of those are shared with one or more other people, which means I'd have
>> to work out some kind of "shared consent" for several hundred addresses.
>> That's not feasible in a reasonable period of time, especially since
>> neither the addresses nor the pool of people they're shared with are static.
> 
> Well, I suppose that most of those mailboxes shouldn't be
> consent-enabled anyway. Addresses like "abuse" or "postmaster" are meant
> to be contacted by anybody that needs it, right? The same for the

No !

> official contact addresses of companies.

In fact, at our domain, few of these kind of adresses aren't protected. Most of them are 
adresses of the kind "everybody in the engineering department" (addresses which are of 
internal use only) "butterfly research workgroup" (a closed group working on some 
particular subject) and so. These are adresses which *are* protected and the concept of 
consent-enable is materialized by checking if the SMTP client sending messages to is in 
some known network or if the connection was authenticated. But nothing prevents that this 
kind of consent should be expanded. Either way, in an organisation like the ours, users 
couldn't understand that the same consent system used for individual addresses couldn't be 
used for collective addresses.