On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 22:49, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Eduardo Roldan writes:
>
> >> 2) spam-till-you-drop.com pays the several hundred bucks a year, and
> >> receives a valid X.509 spam-till-you-drop.com certificate, enabling them to
> >> send "authenticated" mail.
> >
> > My ISP can block spam-till-you-drop.com cert until they apply a good
> > policy of use to their customers.
>
> Or until spam-till-you-drop.com obtains a certificate for
> spam-till-you-drop2.com, which shouldn't take more than 24 hours, and you're
> back to square one.
Agree. You could pay your redemption with a new certificate. But that
may be costly. Maybe that harms a little the spam business. I don't
know. I haven't the brain power to predict these things.
>
> >> 3) The classification of each "authenticated" message is entirely up to the
> >> sender's discretion. If the sender believes that the message is a personal
> >> one-on-one communication, then that's what it is.
> >>
> >
> > If X person sends bulk e-mail as personal he is lying, no matter what he
> > believes the ISP have the final word. If the ISP is permissive block
> > them!
>
> That'll last only long enough for the sender to obtain a new cert. See
> above.
Agree. May be costly.
>
> > Imagine a law that punish the e-mail lie. AMTP permits law
> > enforcement in a easily way.
>
> And who gets to decide whether the sender lied about the nature of the
> message? Someone needs to make this call, and this is a purely subjective
> issue. The sender will simply swear on a stack of bibles that each one of
> the millions of messages they send is individually addressed, and its
> content is custom-tailored to the recipient's "business relationship" with
> the sender.
There is a case. Somebody X saying that he sends custom-tailored
messages and somebody Y saying that somebody X is lying.
Reading the draft I can put an example:
My personal policy is:
MPC-ALLOW
per/individual
per/confirmed
com/confirmed
com/individual
com/customer
MPC-DENY
*/*
OK, now I receive a custom tailored crap that will try to send me blue pills.
See the following cases:
- The message is tagged as per/individual
The sender is lying, the message is commercial and this break
the
definition of 'per' see (1).
- The message is tagged as per/confirmed
Same as above. In any case let the sender show my subsciption.
See (2)
- The message is tagged as com/confirmed
Let the sender show my subscription. See (2)
- The message is tagged as com/individual
This breaks the individual definition. They are trying to do
business.
See (3)
- The message is tagged as com/customer
Prove that I are a customer of their service. See (4)
(1) per/
The email message was sent by an individual person on behalf of
herself/himself in a non-commercial context. The "per"
classification SHALL NOT be used to solicit or prospect for new
business or donations.
(2) /confirmed
Bulk mail to addressees who have confirmed by return mail that
they have asked for this mailing from this sender.
(3) /individual
A special token used for individually addressed non-bulk mail. The
individual type SHALL NOT be used to solicit or prospect for new
business or contributions.
(4) /customer
Bulk mail to addressees who are customers of this sender and have
agreed to receive this class of mail from this sender.
Compare AMTP granularity with the current SMTP. This granularity can help in court? I
think so.
Also this granularity also resolves some dillemas present in day to day
ISP work. I can enforce a customer to tag his mail as com/optout if he
thinks that the spam he sends is valueable for the humanity instead of
cancel his account and fight with him.
> Now what?
>
> ... And if you base your definition of "bulk" purely on a numerical basis,
> it now becomes simply a matter of customizing each individual message
> sufficiently so that it becomes arguable whether the messages overall
> qualify as bulk.
You can see a lot of slashdot news about laws about spam (do you want
links?). Some movement wants the law enforcement as you can see. If
these laws are going to work with the current infrastructure AMTP could
be an aditional tool because it imposes a strict view of somebody rights
broken. Let the judges believe or not believe the swear of the sender.
Sam. Thanks for stick in my mind 'There's got to be a better way'. I'am
trying to find/make it ;-)
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
