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

On January 4, 2014 at 17:12 [email protected] (Steve Atkins) wrote:
 > Some of those concerns are certainly valid - but if you want people
 > to take your views on them seriously you might want to rethink
 > your terminology. Bundling *all* email which has the potential of
 > generating revenue from the sender - including everything from 1:1 mail
 > from my sales rep at one of my suppliers through to botnet generated
 > malware -  into a single concept is unlikely to lead to useful discussion
 > either.

Sez who.

It's fundamentally about the receiver being able to control what they
receive. And what intermediaries (e.g., those who host your email box)
will carry.

They don't need anyone not directly involved to decide what should be
exempt from that control.

That's my point.

And that whatever the intent, no matter how noble, there are so many
thousands of "legitimate" emailers, as well as miscreants, that email
has become increasingly unusuable outside of focused interactions such
as this or one on one email.

As I said I'd set that boundary somewhere very different than you
would, most likely. So, it's the old mechanism vs policy discussion.

At any rate, as soon as one is discussing legitimate versus
non-legitimate senders and similar I think they're wading into a
quagmire, yet again.

But just to bring this down to earth, I am trying to introduce some
different ways of thinking about the problem.

Telling me they're not consistent with the almost total disaster of
spam fighting over the past ~15 years really isn't a compelling
refutation.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | [email protected]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
-
This is the asrg mailing list.  To change your subscription settings, see
http://lists.services.net/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=lists.gurus.org