Re: Water tight opt-in (yet another FUSSP)

On Mon 30/Dec/2013 02:15:27 +0100 Seth wrote:
> Dave Warren <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> As a mailbox provider, it would make my life a lot easier if I could 
>> whitelist every piece of bulk mail that a user actually wants upfront, 
>> allowing me to blacklist (or score down) with impunity.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is a FUSSP since it would require virtually all bulk 
>> senders to comply in order for recipients to yield benefit from it.
> 
> Nope; suppose only one bulk sender and one ISP used it.  They'd benefit:
> the sender would have (a little) less valid email blocked, the ISP's
> customers would have (a little) less wanted email lost.  The incentive
> for each additional sender or ISP to join gets even higher as adoption
> increases.
> 
> There is no necessity that even a large percentage of either adopt it in
> order for the adopters to benefit.

Yup, and in the case of no bulk senders implementing it, an ISP can
still enrich its offering with this additional feature.

> Now, before an ISP could use it to strongly score down bulk mail that
> didn't use it, there would have to be wide adoption by senders; but the
> ISP could use it to weakly score down bulk mail that didn't use it (and
> reject entirely bulk mail claiming to be from senders who do when the
> mail doesn't validate).

I doubt any sender could ever claim that to do subscriptions in a given
way /only/, because people may want to subscribe the way they like.

Ale
-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=lists.gurus.org