Re: Water tight opt-in (yet another FUSSP)
"Neil Schwartzman" <[email protected]> 11 Jan 2014 09:23:54 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.asrg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--Apple-Mail=_7AC3B8FF-3BAF-4EBB-884D-6EA114685C71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Jan 6, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Dave Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > it is laughed off as a "Well I don't see a problem when I don't look = very hard" by one of the professionals who makes money from the same = industry that makes their money sending unwanted spamvertising in the = first place. Since I work for a major receiver would my laughing this off be more = credible (not that I accept for a moment that Laura=92s comments lack = credibility, or yours being mean-spirited and insulting)? =46rom what I can parse this proposal involves receivers changing = infrastructure to fix a problem for which we already have a solution, = AND it makes receivers the de facto curators of permission, which may = have associated legal liabilities. So, more cost, and potential exposure = with no benefits to our customers? Proposing this would be career = suicide. Allow me to have a long belly laugh. The sender of email has, as part of their normal operating = responsibilities and costs, the need to collect and retain permission = data, mostly for legal purposes (permission doesn=92t figure into SMTP = nor reputational decisions for message disposition). Under Canada=92s = Anti-spam Legislation, there is a follow-the-money r=E9gime. Were a = receiver to be the holder of permission data, and somewhere along the = line screwed it up, implementation of this scheme may leave them exposed = to investigations and administrative monetary penalties. I see zero motivating factors to help Senders deal with any problems at = their end, and many potential negatives.=20 Neil Schwartzman Executive Director Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email http://cauce.org Tel : (303) 800-6345 Twitter : @cauce= --Apple-Mail=_7AC3B8FF-3BAF-4EBB-884D-6EA114685C71 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dwindows-1252"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Jan = 6, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Dave Warren <<a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote: <div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote = type=3D"cite"><span style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; = font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; = letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: = start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; = widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: = none; display: inline !important;">it is laughed off as a "Well I don't = see a problem when I don't look very hard" by one of the professionals = who makes money from the same industry that makes their money sending = unwanted spamvertising in the first = place.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>Since I work for a major = receiver would my laughing this off be more credible (not that I accept = for a moment that Laura=92s comments lack credibility, or yours being = mean-spirited and insulting)?</div><div><br></div><div>=46rom what I can = parse this proposal involves receivers changing infrastructure to fix a = problem for which we already have a solution, AND it makes receivers the = de facto curators of permission, which may have associated legal = liabilities. So, more cost, and potential exposure with no benefits to = our customers? Proposing this would be career = suicide.</div><div><br></div><div>Allow me to have a long belly = laugh.</div><div><br></div><div>The sender of email has, as part of = their normal operating responsibilities and costs, the need to collect = and retain permission data, mostly for legal purposes (permission = doesn=92t figure into SMTP nor reputational decisions for message = disposition). Under Canada=92s Anti-spam Legislation, there is a = follow-the-money r=E9gime. Were a receiver to be the holder of = permission data, and somewhere along the line screwed it up, = implementation of this scheme may leave them exposed to investigations = and administrative monetary penalties.</div><div><br></div><div>I see = zero motivating factors to help Senders deal with any problems at their = end, and many potential negatives. </div><div><br></div><div><div = style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Neil = Schwartzman</div><div>Executive Director</div><div>Coalition Against = Unsolicited Commercial Email</div><div><a = href=3D"http://cauce.org">http://cauce.org</a></div><div>Tel : (303) = 800-6345</div></div><div>Twitter : @cauce</div></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_7AC3B8FF-3BAF-4EBB-884D-6EA114685C71--