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

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> I tried and better http://fixforwarding.org/wiki/Water_tight_opt-in
> 
> I have no idea how clear I managed to make it, also because my English
> is what it is.  I welcome your skepticism, and would be grateful if
> you could use it to find the lame passages of that page.

Thanks for this.

And don't worry about your English - it is fine. I think the current proposal is clear and well-written. It doesn't go into details very much, but I can imagine we could fill in those details if we really wanted to.

I still don't think we do though.

Firstly, I think this proposal tries to address a problem that is very small. Laura's comments - thanks for which - confirm me in this belief.

Secondly, I don't believe the solution and its consequences will be easily understood by the average user of email. At a first glance, it might make sense to use an email address that expires after a month for a one-off purpose from a web store. Except that sometimes the customer might like the purchase so much, they decide to buy more stuff, only to find out the order confirmation emails stop arriving. Or the store might have a good reason to contact the consumer - a data breach, a fault discovered in the product - and the emails fail to arrive.

I assume the small minority of email users who do understand the consequences of this AND who think the problem of (this kind of) spam justifies using tagged addresses can use something like trashmail.

Martijn.

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