Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2002)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: e-postage again
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 21:50:29 -0700
To: <tneff @ grassyhill . org>, list-managers <list-managers @ greatcircle . com>
In-reply-to: <166549328 . 1021850923 @ [192 . 168 . 0 . 2]>
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1331

On 5/19/02 8:28 PM, "Tom Neff" <tneff @
 grassyhill .
 net> wrote:

> service.  I am looking for something more like a proof of license to send.

Which implies someone/something is required to define "need" or "worth" of
what's being sent. And that's going to fundamentally fail, except on an
individual basis. 

As an extreme example -- if a person wants a "proof of license" to send
child pornography, it's going to be rejected by any authority. But on a
fundamental basis, if you want to avoid censorship or bureaucratic biases of
any sort, if the recipient of that e-mail WANTS the kiddie porn, that
license should be granted. To do otherwise simply creates a system where you
no longer have "send it only if I accept it" but a bureaucracy of some sort
that defines "send it only if it's acceptable".

So we wander right back to that "license to send" being issued by the
receiver. So unless you want to create some form of query-respond acceptance
scheme where you send a widget to get permission to send an email, or you
are back as "decide on receipt", which is what we have today, only with some
new wrappings on it to make it seem different.

And as I noted in another message on all this, the query-respond systems
(aka the whitelist with rejection unless you get overt permission to send)
is unacceptable to most people because of the high level of irritation it
causes senders and the high level of false positives it generates for the
receivers. 

So none of these systems really change the status quo of how we decide
whether to accept mail. They just create complications that don't really
affect the end result...


-- 
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui @
 plaidworks .
 com -- http://www.chuqui.com/

No! No! Dead girl, OFF the table! -- Shrek





Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: e-postage again
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Next: Re: e-postage again
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: e-postage again
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>
Next: Re: e-postage again
From: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com