> When I wrote that "nobody would be complaining if spam primarily consisted > > of Bloomingdale's catalogues and coupon val-paks" I didn't mean we wouldn't > complain if we recieved the same amount of spam but it was from legitimate > companies. I meant that maybe 1% of my spam comes from legitimate > companies
I am not sure how this line of discussion relates to the proposed BCP, but indeed discussions about spam need to distinguish between real companies that are too aggressive, versus the folks that might politely be called rogue but more usefully called criminal. (Independent of whether they break laws, all of their behaviors are that of a criminal, in terms of trying to bypass filters and avoid accountability.) Real companies need real and appropriate rules. We might not like these companies, but we can bring them under control. Criminals, of course, need different methods. So an attempt to bring this thread into some relevance for the Last Call: The methods in the draft BCP are intended to close some holes and improve up-stream (source) accountability. It's a small but necessary step towards finding ways to develop trust, since trust begins with accountability. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
