Chris Newman wrote: > The $adult keyword should be removed from this draft on the grounds that the > definition is too vague to provide any value for interoperability. The > mechanism is inappropriate as the rules for what constitutes adult content > varies significantly by country, state, city, religion and culture (not to > mention the rules for what constitutes an adult). Thus it is not sufficiently > i18n-aware and I do not believe it can be made so. > > Furthermore, it is controversial on ethical grounds as it provides a mechanism > for inappropriate censorship. Such mechanisms inevitably censor valuable > material such as discussion of "safer sex", "breast cancer", "nudity in art" or > similar topics which many believe should not be restricted to adults. > > Finally, I can not see any technical way to correct all of the problems with > $adult. It must be removed from the draft.
Ok, I agree with your arguments. > Note that similar issues apply to the $Spam keyword but I believe they can be > corrected. As the definition of the term "spam" is controversial, I recommend > using the term "junk" which can more easily be defined as we wish. I would use > four keywords: $Junk, $NoJunk, $AutoJunk, $AutoNoJunk. "Junk" is defined as an > explicit end-user indication they do not wish to read similar messages in the > future. This is too far reaching. I don't think I can reasonably explain what is "don't want to read anything similar in the future". > "AutoJunk" is an automated system's guess that the end user might > consider that message Junk. As $AutoJunk and $AutoNoJunk are error-prone, an > MUA MUST provide the ability to view $AutoJunk messages with reasonable > convenience. So basically you are suggesting that $AutoJunk/$AutoNoJunk are read-only? > This allows the combination "$NoJunk" and "$AutoJunk" which indicates the > automated system made a false-positive (very useful information to retain). > > Now if present use of $Junk and $NoJunk conflicts with these definitions, we > should select new names which do not conflict. I believe Junk and NoJunk are in use (no leading $). Does anybody have any information on how there are used? Alexey __________________________________________ Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel IETF standard related pages: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel/devel/Links.html __________________________________________
