Subject: Re: SPAM

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:03:02 -0400

My responses below.

FYI, Jonathan, please be aware that everything you are posting to the list
is coming from two accounts. You are posting everything twice.

Ted

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ColorNet Robin [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:28 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      SPAM
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3822.html?chkpt=ad1qsfp
>
        Thanks for the link. We did post this to the group last week.

> Question :  To what extent does the draft currently address
>
> 1)  Paid Advertising
>
        If by "Paid Advertising" you mean an advertisement that is paid for,
and sent via a larger context, such as a free e-mail service to its
subscribers, it is addressed anecdotally in Section 6, B.

> 2)  Commercial Spam
        Commercial spam is defined in RFD 2635. As it applies to
advertising, it is addressed throughout the document.

> 3)  Non commercial spam
        Is defined in RFD 2635. As the current document concerns itself with
Advertising Responsibly, non-commercial spam is outside of the scope, I
think. Comments anyone?

> 4)  Rich Media
>
>
>
> 5)  Next generation rich e-mails
>
        While a hassle, do we want to get that specific? We've stated in the
draft that is you're going to send e-mail to people, make sure it is with
their knowledge and permission. To then continue to address subsets of
e-mail (Rich vs. Text, MIME vs. UUENCODE, etc...) begs a larger context, and
one that is not necessarily addressed here.

        From my perspective, the problem with the Rich e-mails is one of
bandwidth. Since bandwidth increases in proportion to time at market, more
bandwidth becoming available at lower prices eliminates that problem.  By
restricting ourselves to the notion that bandwidth will always be a problem,
we make the draft more restrictive, do we not?

        I hope someone else out there has some comments on this, though,
since that it only my opinion!

> 6)  Data protection
        In section;

        7.A               "Opt-In Privacy"
        7.C               "Protection"
        8.                 "Responsible Behavior"
        Appendix B   "Why Web Privacy?"

> 7)  Data collection
        Throughout the document

> 8)  Protection of minors and "human dignity"
>
        In section;

        4.                  "Caveat Mercator"

Sorry for not being longer-winded today, but I'm sitting in a hurricane,
wondering if my company's main manufacturing plant is still there.

More later...

Regards;

Ted