Subject: Re: Spam

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:36:17 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ColorNet Robin [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:39 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Spam
>
> Hello all. .....
>
> I have started rereading the draft run and there are a number of points
> that could be brought out.
> For example the case of theft is seriously weakened with increasing
> recourse to free internet access and cable connection.
>
        I fail to see how the concept of theft changes with the medium over
which it is committed. Spamming is spamming, whether it be over a
cablemodem, telephone modem, or website-based e-mail utility accessed in a
JavaCafe.

        That's the whole point.

> Also, and I will go into this deeper after my lunch on wednesday with the
> Commissaire of the CNIL (French Data Protection Agency), there are a
> number of changes in the pipeline including opt in agreements due to start
> in Europe in January, and agreed on by all the European Data Protection
> authorities.
>
        Why does this matter? We are not setting law here, merely
recognizing that such laws exist. If there is a law on record which pertains
to the privacy of personal information, the sending of Unsolicited
Commercial E-Mail or Usenet posts, or other RELEVANT topics, please post it
or e-mail it to me and I will include it in the appropriate place.

        We cannot and will not wait for international governmental bodies to
create law so we can reference them. The RFC processes is designed to be
able to accommodate the fact that laws do change - RFC get updated and
obsoleted.

> I have suggested that those on this list also join the ISTF list - it is
> by invitation so drop a note to Vint  [email-masked] and you will have open
> access .... enjoy.
>
        I'm already a member of ISTF, but I still fail to see the
interconnection. I am an ISOC member, like you. I realize that there are
overlapping areas of interest. However, the IETF is the body charged with
the implementation of directional policy. That is our role.

        Jonathan, you are trying to turn this draft into an ISOC dictum. I
suggest you compare that to any other Informational RFC in existence. It
simply will not be approved. In such cases, we must present what we
reasonably expect to be adopted.

        Consider this work to be a primer for a marketing student in
university. for a new business-person searching for information. Existing
spammers will no more be stopped by this than they would by losing their
domain names repeatedly and having to go underground.

        We cannot, by nature, be all things to all people. Therefore, we
must be a framework for as many as possible.

        I wish to close this by stating very clearly that, as the Editor of
this document, I will include whatever the group and the authors feel is
germane. Neither Sally as Chair, or April as AD have ever discounted
contributions because of disagreements that I know of.

        Everyone is open to suggestions, but I assure you that political
will and political or commercial agendas have no place here whatsoever.

        Ted