RE: [Asrg] Consent Proposal

> 
> Things that MTAs and MUAs can do differ radically.
> 

Yes, that's true and you need both to deal with a wide variety of
consent-related policies.

> > B. each plug-in provides for some type of policy 
> definition, related 
> > to the plugins purpose. This can range from filtering to CR 
> to all the 
> > other methods mentioned below.
> 
> "Plug-in" worries me.  At best it suggests an implementation 
> mechanism instead of a protocol notion.  At worst it suggests 
> an intolerable security nightmare as is standard in commodity 
> desktop software.
> 

You can call it something else if you want. But its pretty obvious to me
that a single-vendor, single-architecture solution will not solve the
entire "unwanted email" problem.

> 
> > C. each plug-in can be configured by a hierarchy. Starting 
> w/ the ISP 
> > (for instance), then perhaps a domain-level admin (for corporate 
> > applications0 and then the end-user.  We can decide on 
> varying levels 
> > of defaults or override capability so that for example if an ISP 
> > whitelists a source, the end-user may have the option to 
> blacklist it. 
> > ...
> 
> That needs to be made concrete in terms of protocols and 
> mechanisms so that it can be discussed by a technical group.
> 
> 

Agreed. Perhaps this group can start getting more specific on the
protocols and mechanisms. 

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