Re: [Asrg] Consent Proposal

["Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com>]

> >I don't believe that this adds up to what you claim.
> >
> >There was some more fundamental (but probably premature)
> >discussion of "consent" early in the life this group.
> 
> The charter goes on and on about consent, however aside from Gordon's
> HTML
> blocking thread, there has been no discussion of that. 

You might be interested in the threads starting with
<E18r0iB-0000Ci-00@mail.nitros9.org> "[Asrg] The Consent 4-Tuple"
and
<E18sKmk-00009r-00@argon.connect.org.uk> "[Asrg] What would consent look
like?"

>If discussion of 
> consent is premature at the moment, 

I meant premature at the time. People were busy contributing their pet
silver bullets. I thought this would have stopped by now.
Shows how much I know... :-)

>what should we be looking at right
> now?
> In general, what directions should the group be pursuing at the moment?

I strongly believe that you are right, that an analysis of the consent
problem is important. I believe that one can get to a general framework for
anti-spam systems from first principles.

I think it tends to something like:
message classifier function
+ expression of recipient policy (consent expression)
+ policy enforcement agent







--

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg