RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)

I would say that if you sent verisign an email ( and that email was NOT
asking to no longer receive emails) that, yes, there is an implied
consent to communicate with verisign. And yes, if they "flooded" you
with messages about their products, it is NOT UBE (I still may not like
it, and I may even hate it, but its not UBE).

However that also means that if you tell Verisign "stop" and they still
keep sending, its UBE.  If Verisign ever sends you messages about their
products without ever receiving implied or explicit consent from you,
its UBE.

It also means that if, on the signature of your email, you EXPLICITLY
state you do not want to receive any bulk email, and they ignore that
EXPLICIT request, its UBE.

There's a difference between mail we don't want to get, bad practices of
various vendors, and UBE.  If we can keep this thread on defining the U
and B along nice, thick black lines, then we have a clear definition of
UBE. 

We can never claim that people will never receive an email that they
don't like or want,  we can't help ISPs figure out how not to lose money
accepting email, and we can't stop your uncle from sending you stupid
jokes, but we can certainly look at an email and say, "yes, that's UBE"
or "no, that's not UBE".

And then we can make sure our technology solutions are in-line with the
scope of the problem that UBE defines.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:40 AM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria 
> for "what is spam"...)
> 
> 
> > From: Bill Cole <aarg@billmail.scconsult.com>
> 
> > I think you have your X's and Y's mixed up.
> 
> the mistake I made.
> 
> > In your example, Mr. Kay's axiom would imply that X has implicitly
> > given permission for Y to mail him.
> >
> > I think that's sound.
> 
> Are you sure of that?  Thinking about it some more, I think 
> those words not only confuse some of us but are dangerous.
> 
> Y surely already has permission to send non-bulk mail to X if 
> Y has legitimate possession of X's address (e.g. found 
> somewhere open like the archives for this list instead of bad 
> means such as dictionary attacks). Saying that X's mail 
> somehow gives more permission suggests that Y has permission 
> to do more.  
> Would sending a message to Verisign asking about the real 
> owners of an odd certificate owned supposedly by "Microsoft 
> Corporation" give Verisign permission to flood your mailbox 
> with their familiar stream of messages about Verisign products?
> 
> 
> Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg