RE: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>However, on the global level how does is the consent framework
relevant? 
	I don't think it is too hard to see how various consent based
systems could work on a global level. Not all of the possiblities are
going to be sensible, however...

	1. If consent can be "expressed" in some sort of a document or
data structure, that "expression of consent" can be communicated or
moved from the local periphery of the system into the more global core.
Thus, I, my ISP, or my organization, might prepare an "expression of
consent" that states that mail will not be accepted if it exceeds
certain sizes, contains certain elements (such as attachments) or is of
a "commercial" nature. If this expression can be accessed by arbitrary
nodes, then either sending nodes or intermediate nodes would be able to
determine what had been consented to and decide whether to originate or
relay any particular message.
	A very simple version of such a system would be created if we
were to adopt something like the "donotcall.gov" system which is used to
block telemarketing calls in the US.

	2. If systems that rely on "licenses to send" or
recipient-issued tokens are deployed, then depending on the way these
things are implemented, upstream nodes would be able to inspect the
licenses and determine whether or not a particular message was, in fact,
authorized. Depending on implementation choices, non-authorized messages
could be either discarded, subjected to more or greater "spam-detection"
inspections, or routed at lower quality of service.

	Consent based systems can have value on a "global" non-local
basic even though they express the consent of "local" systems or users.

		bob wyman


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