>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hallam-Baker,> Do we have to go through this yet again? The
Hallam-Baker,> entire premise of spam filtering is that the
Hallam-Baker,> recipient is not prepared to deliver mail to a
Hallam-Baker,> user's mail box unless the sender convinces the
Hallam-Baker,> recipient of their bona fides.
Hallam-Baker,> In this context whining on about the wishes of the
Hallam-Baker,> sender is pointless. The entire point is that the
Hallam-Baker,> sender has no rights in this matter. The spammy
Hallam-Baker,> sender does not have the right to choose the spam
Hallam-Baker,> elimination tools used by the recipient.
Phil, I explained this to someone in private mail recently, but
perhaps if it is coming up again here, I need to say it in public.
This is not about rights. This is about what makes the Internet work.
If we standardize a technology, we are saying that technology solves
some problem. and that its usage has well understood and accepted
consequences.
So it is entirely appropriate to consider the effects on senderds of
spam filtering technology. Does the technology have an unacceptably
high false positive rate? Does the technology adversly effect
business models or classes of users in ways we find unacceptable?
Does the technology impose and unreasonable load on senders?
The receiver can do whatever they like. The sender has no rights.
However, people expect us to publish standards that make sense and
produce a working Internet when used. So we're going to consider
these issues when we evaluate standards. They like everything else we
do will be a matter of rough consensus. If you want to ignore the
implications of your work on the broader Internet and on both senders
and recipients, then perhaps the IETF is the wrong place for you to do
your work.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf