> >> Ok, I'm dense. How do I meaningfully consent to > >> somebody for which I have no a priori information > >> about their consentworthiness? > > PV> you can't. that's why you're getting spammed. > > What makes this such an "interesting" problem is the critical need for > spontaneous (unsolicited and uncoordinated) communication is many > human activities. Eliminating the ability to have new people show up > without an "appointment" will cripple some activities. as i've said twice before on this thread in the past several days, i don't care who you are but i do care who you know. if the world has its hooks into you -- mutual trust, bond, or some combination -- then i will probably consent to communication with you even if you remain anonymous behind some kind of trust brokerage in finland. however, if you are completely rogue, i will probably not give my consent to communicate with you. note that that's just me. others are likely to have longer or shorter lists of demands. some will only accept mail from folks within their own church or political party or sexual orientation. some will continue to accept everything. the point is, we all need to know what's being offered BEFORE we've expended our resources to receive it. unsolicited, uncoordinated communication is wonderful, and i miss it. let's build a universal electronic trust hairball so that we can get it back again. right now my choice is "deal with yahoo's endless unconfirmed spew" or "not be able to join any of the mailing lists my neighbors have set up there" and i would like a finer grained selection than that. -- Paul Vixie