Subject: CALL FOR VOTE: (WAS: RE: Title)

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:27:30 -0400

Sally dixit:

> I like this and I like jc's suggestion.  I think either title
> is a vast improvement over the problematic title the doc has now.
>
Okay folks...we have two titles on the table:

Title "A" is:

 How to Advertise Responsibly Using the Internet

               or how NOT to

     $$$$$  MAKE ENEMIES FAST!  $$$$$

Title "B" is:

 Responsible Advertising Using the Internet

>              or, how NOT to
>
>     $$$$$  LOSE MONEY FAST!!! $$$$$
>
Let's hear from you all no later than Wednesday 10/13 at 23:00gmt. I'll post
the results Thursday morning and make the necessary changes. Also, the
draft's most recent version is still on the webpage - final comments should
come
asap - or a yea or nay vote from those of you who are so motivated as to
make
yourselves heard.

http://home.att.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt

I will submit at the end of this week!

Ted

---

From: Russell Tewksbury <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:29:15 -0400

YEA on Title "B":

             or, how NOT to

AND

YEA on the "draft's most recent version"

"Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" wrote:

> Sally dixit:
>
> > I like this and I like jc's suggestion.  I think either title > is a vast
> improvement over the problematic title the doc has now.
> >

---

From: JC Dill <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:23:33 -0700

>>     $$$$$  LOSE MONEY FAST!!! $$$$$

I'm a vote for A.  Be isn't bad per se, but I think it will miss it's
mark.  Telling a spammer they will lose money by spamming is like telling a
child that their nose will fall off if they do coke.  The child *knows*
people who have done coke and haven't had their noses fall off.  The
spammer knows people who have spammed and made money (or so they
said).  Very few spammers have _actually_ lost money (been forced to pay a
penalty fee or fine to the ISPs involved).

But if you tell the spammer that they will "make enemies fast", well...
it's undeniably true.  So they can't as easily convince themselves that it
is really OK to spam by saying that the cautionary warning they read was
all FUD.

 >http://home.att.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt

Draft is OK by me.

jc

---

From: JC Dill <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:23:22 -0700

>I'm a vote for A.  Be isn't bad per se, but I think it will miss it's

ARUGH!  *&%)&* stupid spell checker!!!  What I meant to say was:

B isn't bad per se, but I think it will miss its...

jc

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:17:01 -0400

I vote for A also.
Doanld

From:  JC Dill <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:   <[email-masked]>
Date:          Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:23:33 -0700
Sender:  IETF-RUN <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]
In-Reply-To:   <[email-masked]>