Re: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed

[Steve Atkins <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Chris Lewis wrote:

> On 3/2/2010 12:12 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> 
>> There is one argument, not made by Kulawiec that does deserve a response.
>> That is the underlying problem with the TIS button that is real. It will
>> generate ARFs that are really just list-unsubscribe requests from
>> perfectly legitimate sources. It will generate these in large numbers and
>> it will be impractical to reduce them with user education. Anyone
>> proposing to process the flood of such messages will have to come up with
>> an economical way of doing so that doesn't inconvenience the list owners.
> 
> Having the report recipient automatically utilize the list unsubscribe headers present in the headers immediately comes to mind.
> 
>> In fact, I think most of the opposition to the TIS button comes from the
>> owners of such lists who feel they would be the victims. To some extent
>> they are justified - they are following the rules, why should they pay a
>> penalty. But if the penalty were a small change in their operation, say an
>> improvement in the standardization of list-unsubscribe headers - it might
>> be justifiable.
> 
> I think most of us would be satisfied with improvements in the _adoption_ of the existing list unsubscribe headers.

The existing spec is too loose to really be usable automagically, which means that the only thing that can be usefully adopted is a subset of RFC 2369. Vagueness about what that subset should be is one thing hindering adoption. (Redundancy as compared to in-body unsub links and out of band FBL reports is another, I suspect).

Cheers,
  Steve