Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

"Bob Wyman" <bob@wyman.us> writes:

> Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>> Would XrML -  eXtensible rights Markup Language 
>> (http://www.xrml.org) or OASIS Rights Language be 
>> a suitable language for consent?
> 	Once you get past all the obvious and boring objections to the
> use of XML for something like this, "Yes" these methods would serve as a
> good base. There isn't anything special about granting someone rights to
> send you mail. You just need to be able to identify what rights can be
> granted, what terms and conditions are relevant to the grants, etc.
> Then, create the extensions to something like XrML and you're done. At
> that point, you've got to deal with more mundane issues... Like: what do
> you do with grants once you've got them? How do you distribute them? Do
> you embed them in messages? Do you allow creation of tokens or proxies
> as "small" versions of the larger documents? Etc...

From the point of view of effectiveness on spam control, it's probably
worth distinguishing two classes of features that might appear in such
consent declarations.  

There are the relatively easy things: whether I accept HTML
attachements, size of email, etc.  In general, those things which can
be checked (and therefore enforced) automatically.  

Then there are the things that (alas) don't seem to be automatically
enforceable: for example that I won't accept any commercial email,
that I won't accept any commercial email except about getting larger,
firmer mortgages for septic tanks.

The former would be useful, but I'm doubtful that it would have much
of an impact on spam.  The latter seems to me to rely on the sender
accurately tagging their messages according to content---possibly that
would happen often enough that it would be worthwhile, but I'm not
sure that it would.

[...]

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