Subject: minor nits in draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt

From: Anne Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:10:11 -0400

Hi, folks; sorry I've been such a stranger.  Congrats on
draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt; I think it will be a very successful
and helpful document.  I believe that it has already been sent for
approval as an RFC, right?  I hope there's still time to correct these
relatively minor errors:

> associated with spamming is equitable to real theft)
                              ^^^^^^^^^
                              equatable (not the same word at all!)

> marketing perspective, than millions of actively
> disinterested potential recipients.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  uninterested (slightly different meaning)

> Advertiser's wishing to employ Opt-In mailing lists in their
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Advertisers (spelling error)

> Message-ID: <k???12qelNxp7Q=??3dbgLHWTLv@4??.bar>
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that really a legal Message-ID?

> Gavin, et al               Expires: 1Apr2000                   [Page 16]
  ^^^...
After this header or footer, there is almost certainly some text missing.

> However, the profits to be made by selling personal information
               ^^^^^^^
> and by using these lists for advertisement purposes, often dissuades
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^
> self-regulation.

Subject and verb do not agree.  How about "the size of the profits".

Finally, it may be too late to correct this, but, just in case:

> While the letters that accompany these things usually have all kinds
> of language about following the instructions exactly, the most
> rational thing for a participant to do if they decided to participate
> in such a thing would be to;

I find it hard to swallow calling a dishonest action "rational",
though I believe I understand what the author is trying to say.  How
about:

  rational thing for a dishonest person to do if they decided [...]

Again, congrats on a great document.

Anne.
--
Ms. Anne Bennett, Senior Analyst, IITS, Concordia University, Montreal H3G 1M8
[email-masked]                                        +1 514 848-7606

---

From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:42:28 -0400

In response to Anne's good points....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Bennett [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 2:10 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      minor nits in draft-ietf-run-adverts-01.txt
>
        (all spelling errors corrected - thanks!)

> > Message-ID: <k???12qelNxp7Q=??3dbgLHWTLv@4??.bar>
        No. It was before I altered it.

> After this header or footer, there is almost certainly some text missing.
        Don't know how that happened, but it's back now.

> Subject and verb do not agree.  How about "the size of the profits".
        I couldn't quite get that to flow well, but I changed it to:

        "However, the anticipated profit to be made by selling personal data
and by using
        these lists for advertisement purposes, often dissuades
self-regulation."

>   rational thing for a dishonest person to do if they decided [...]
        How about:

        "the most rational thing for a dishonest participant to do
        if they decided to participate in such a thing would be to; ..."

Sally, April or Donald - should I resubmit as an incremented draft ID
number, or should we just wait for RFC consideration to submit the updated
doc?

tg

---

From: Sally Hambridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:34:19 PDT

Ted -  best to wait to resubmit until after the Wash DC
meeting.  There will be other feedback
to incorporate generated during the WG session,
so we'll resubmit with an incremented draft
number after the meeting.

Sally