From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Thu Apr 15 09:32:16 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27956 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA25836; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 79295 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:19:11 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA25829 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L7H3>; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:20:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:20:35 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: Calling all RUNners . . . To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com I thought I would send a note along to let you all know that the list, and the group, is indeed still alive, and we're showing signs of kicking, too. April has asked me to act as Editor in Chief for the completion of the Adverts draft, so I thought I would pass along a note to let you know that you should expect some traffic on the list in the days/weeks/months to come, as well as to spark your minds into considering what things should go into the document. The existing draft, available by ftp below, will serve as a good starting point and reference for the finished product. I think what we need to do is consider the tone of the document, and the message we want to send. My take on this is that we are providing a reference and a framework for those who will *want* to use the internet for commercial means. We can't be too condescending, lest we risk alienating the prospective spammers in out midst. We can't be too vague, lest we accomplish nothing. Please do chime in with your individual and collective perspectives on this situation, as it will provide a good foundation for the messages we need to incorporate. You can get the Adverts draft via ftp at: ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-adverts-00.txt . So, that having been said, I'll leave it to the people here to start some lively conversation and debate :-) Cheers! Ted Gavin Director, Information Technology Penn Ventilation, Inc. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Apr 16 14:25:17 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10820 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:25:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA26822; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 80243 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:13:30 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA26815 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L752>; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:14:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:14:52 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: Re: Calling all RUNners . . . Comments: cc: "tevans@altavista.net" To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Hi Tom! Thanks for your message. Right now, the most help we need in in reviewing the Adverts draft, and looking at; a. What is it we need to say to the community b. Which manner is the most effective Then, we start to compile a draft. We'll all have our own ideas regarding how to do it. The best way to do it is get everything together, then start seeing what fits. My best advice is to read the draft if you have not already. Then think of what your knowledge, experience, and ideas tell you regarding how to address this issue. And, communicate on the list, a lot. Communication here will entice others to de-lurk and participate, which is crucial. Thanks again! Ted Gavin Director, Information Technology Penn Ventilation, Inc. >Thomas E. Evans Jr. wrote: > >What can I do to help Ted? > >Best, >Thomas E. Evans Jr. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Fri Apr 16 15:16:56 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12601 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA27612; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 80329 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:05:46 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA27605 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L761>; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:07:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:07:18 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: The ADVERTS draft, as it now stands To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In case ftp is being temperamental, I've forwarded the entire text, unaltered since our recent rebirth, for the groups perusal. Good reading. Ted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- IETF RUN Working Group Sally Hambridge / Intel draft-ietf-run-adverts-00.txt Donald Eastlake 3rd March 1998 $$$$$ MAKE ENEMIES FAST $$$$$ or How to Advertise Responsibly Using the Internet Abstract Contrary to popular belief, the Internet did not spring fully-clothed from Zeus's head, but it did grow like kudzu. This growth engendered a large new user population some of whom are more than willing to use the Internet in ways for which it was never intended. This seems to be especially true about people who are new to the Internet and see it as the perfect advertising vehicle. Those people are sure to "make enemies fast" by sending mass unsolicited mailing or posting advertisements heedlessly to news groups. This document gives some guidelines and advice about how to advertise responsibly using the Internet. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts. Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in progress." Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other Internet Draft. It is intended that this document will be submitted to the IESG for consideration as a standards document. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 1] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 1. Introduction A lot of the population which is new to the Internet think that the Internet "old guard" (defined as anyone who was using the Internet before the invention of web browsers) are diametrically opposed to using the Internet for advertising. This is not true. But in general, Internet culture opposes use of the network in irresponsible ways and this usually includes people who advertise by sending unsolicited information to Netnews groups and Internet mailing lists. People who "spam" mailing lists and Netnews groups depend on the cooperative nature of the Internet protocols as they were developed during times when there were no Internet advertisers. The protocols do not associate costs with volume of messages sent. Although it makes the Internet an attractive medium for advertising (because it seems cheap), it really shifts the cost from the sender to the recipient. The recipient pays for connectivity, for the cost of downloading the message, for disk space, and for the time needed to deal with the mail. The sender bears a very small fraction of the overall cost. This is why many Internet citizens have come to think of receiving unsolicited mail as "theft of service". It has also come to be called "Internet Pollution." There is money to be made through Internet advertising (although surveys show that selling stuff on the Internet is not as rewarding as selling routers and network connections - as it was more rewarding during the Gold Rush in California to sell shovels and Levis(R).) This document recommends ways to advertise on the Internet which will not engender hate-mail or threats of law-suits. It does not guarantee freedom from those things, but it should reduce the volume of any complaints you might receive to a level with which most humans can cope. 2. Caveats Even though it is financially attractive to advertise via mass unsolicited mail or by mass postings to netnews, AVOID THIS TEMPTATION. You may make money. You make get some interested customers. You may expand your business. But you will alienate hundreds to thousands of people. You will damage your credibility. You may even lose your connectivity. Advertising on the Internet means taking responsibility for the persona you create. If you are going to be Dr. Frankenstein and create a monster, you MUST take responsibility for the actions of and reactions to that monster. Remember the Golden Rule (and in this case we do not mean the version which states "he who has the gold makes the rule"): treat others as you want to be treated. Also, think about what would happen if everyone on the Internet mass mailed everyone else on the Internet. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 2] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 It is important for the Internet advertiser to maintain a quality reputation for fairness, honesty, and integrity. This is dictated by the rate at which both information and misinformation travel on the Internet. If you get a reputation for being unfair, dishonest, or slimey DESERVED OR NOT it will take a very long time for you to overcome the stigma. With this in mind, you MUST NOT in any way forge information in messages you send or in information you post. Changing the information about yourself or the machines which handle your traffic in ways which obscure your true identity (forging) is now illegal in several jurisdictions and people have been successfully prosecuted. Illegal or not, don't do it if you want to maintain your spotless reputation. It is also unethical to use network resources of another party or person without their express permission. You MUST NOT send mail through a mail host which belongs to anyone else without their permission (mail relaying). Be very careful in soliciting information from people on the Internet. As the saying goes, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" [1]. You will not be able to tell from whom you are collecting information and they may not be a legal adult with complete discretionary and plenipotentiary power. In other words, you may be dealing with a six-year old. Or a dog. Let people know you are collecting data and what you plan to do with the information you are collecting. Remember that the laws on what is legal to collect vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and make sure you understand these legal implications. Finally, as words to live by, if you're not sure what you are planning to do is bad, it probably is so don't do it. 3. Know your target audience There are two parts to knowing your target audience: the first is to actually TARGET the audience; and the second is getting to KNOW the audience. As simple as this sounds, it seems as if most Internet advertisers don't bother with either step. One feels that it should be obvious to all that marketing an idea, goods, or services should be targeted at an audience which is receptive to them. Shotgunning your message doesn't really work in any medium, but is much easier to do with the Internet than with paper mail or telephone solicitations. Just because you (as an advertiser) don't pay an immediate fee for sending out unsolicited ads doesn't mean you pay nothing. You will pay in poor response time, in being Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 3] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 mail-bombed, in having your account pulled by your Internet Service Provider, and in having your ISP's network "black-holed" by other sites trying to stem the tide of unsolicited stuff. All of this is costly in time, if not in actual currency. All this cost could be avoided if you take the time to figure out WHO really needs to see your message. Do your research! Find out WHICH Netnews groups are discussing topics in your area of interest; use the search engines such as Yahoo, Lycos, and AltaVista to determine how other people have selected their audiences or set up appropriate web sites. BUT DO NOT BUY A MAILING LIST AND/OR MAILING LIST SOFTWARE AND BROADCAST YOUR MESSAGE WILLY-NILLY TO ALL. This is not a good thing. Target your audience. Now that you know WHO should receive your message, find out HOW they prefer to receive it. Many many mailing lists and Netnews groups hate loathe and abhor unsolicited ads of any kind. Others are receptive to ads for items which relate to the discussion at hand. Others may have a special methodology they wish advertisers to follow, such as asking the moderator for permission, or the moderator may prefer to cumulate all ads, and post a periodic digest of them. The list or group may have a FAQ (a list of Frequently Asked Questions) in which their policy is stated. Be sure to read and comply. In order to discover how your audience is going to respond, it is a good practice to actually READ the postings of the group (or list) for two full months BEFORE you post anything. Two months seems like an eternity in Internet time, but in that two month period, you will learn what you need to know about the group to guarantee you don't violate any of their rules. And during that time if YOU should receive any unsolicited ads, see how YOU feel about them. Hate them? Good! Don't send them! 4. Can't wait for eternity? Your need is immediate. You don't have two months you can wait. What should you do? You may begin to advertise your goods and services immediately if you choose "passive" methods to do so rather than actively sending messages or posts. Why not buy advertising space on an existing World Wide Web site? Many sites on the World Wide Web support themselves by selling space for advertisers. This method has several advantages: it's probably cheaper than putting up your own site (Caveat: Your Milage May Vary); You are using resources which already exist (recycling is a Good Thing); Depending on the site from which you advertise your ad may be specifically targetted at the most receptive audience ( a Very Good Thing). Your message could become part of a larger context supporting free email accounts, free Internet access, or even broadcast news. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 4] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 Alternatively, you can put up your own web site. There are many companies who design and host web sites for businesses of every size and type. They will be able to get you through the decisions of whether or not you resigter as your own domain or use the domain name of your service provider/host. They will be able to make recommendations about the equipment needed, and give you 7x24 (that's 7 days by 24 hours - full coverage) support and do regular backups. Keep your site fresh by making sure your information is up to date, and that any links you may have to other sites are correct. (Of course, you should ask a site for permission before linking to it.) Put your product information in easy-to-read and easy-to-find format. The latest wizzy technology is never the lowest common denominator, so decide where your site falls in this spectrum. Make sure you understand any legal ramifications of advertising your products. Certain jurisdictions frown on content which is sexually oriented while others don't care. Make sure you understand the implications of World Wide advertising before entering the fray, including trademarks and copyrights. No matter what method you choose to use on the Web, there are a few more caveats about customer interactions: first, make sure your contact information - name, phone, email address - are all clear and available; second, be careful in creating forms which gather information about your customers as there is concern in the U.S. about gathering information from minors without parental consent AND there is concern about grabbing use information via persistent state information; third, if you DO gather information about people and plan to use it for marketing in any way be VERY clear to specify your plans as people sign up. 5. No, mail really is the answer You can't afford a Web site or even to advertise on other sites, and mailing your information is about your only option. Here are some DOs and DON'Ts. First, the DON'Ts. DON'T forge your mail headers to make it look as if your messages orginate from anywhere other than where they really originate. DON'T send out any sort of bogus message to "cover" your intended activity. In other words, don't pretend that a personal message from you to someone else was sent to a mailing list by mistake so that you can use the body of that message to advertise. Dear Tony - had a great time a lunch yesterday. Per your request, here's the information on the latest widget I promised - blah blah blah. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 5] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 DON'T use aggravating headers such as "Our research shows you're interested in our product." Most of your recipients know this is usually a bogus claim. DON'T create mailing lists from third party sources. Many folks out there create mailing lists from addresses which they have gathered in mildly to extremely unethical ways. Many of these list-makers rely on grabbing volumes of addresses without checking their legitimacy. In other words, they send out software robots to grab addresses they find in News or Mailing List archives which may be many years old! People change jobs, change ISPs, change everything about themselves over time and trusting a third party for a mailing list is just not wise. That third party may even have created a mailing list from email eddresses of people who have asked to be REMOVED from their mailing lists. They then sell these lists to poor unsuspecting folks who think they're getting a list of people who will welcome the unsolicited information. Enough negativity! DO create a lively signature which tells the minimum about your product/service. But keep it to 4 lines total. DO participate in mailing lists and newsgroups which discuss topics related to your product/service. You will find folks of a similar interest there and many potential customers. So long as you aren't an obnoxious jerk in your interactions with these groups you will find your participation quite rewarding. DO ask people if they want to be part of any mailing list you create. Be clear about your intentions of how you plan to use the list and any other information you collect. DO tell people how you gathered your list data. If they've signed up from a web page, make sure they know they will be getting mail. Many web pages have getting mail selected as default. Our recommendation should be that the default should be that they do NOT wish to receive mailings - even if they find your site of interest. DO keep your list to yourself. Selling it would not be ethical. DO let people know how to get off your list. Make this as easy as possible, DO let people know what you plan to do with any data you collect. Make sure that what you plan to do is legal. You can check with the web site of the Better Business Bureau which operates in the U.S. and Canada. (www.bbb.org) They have several programs and services which can help advertisers in those countries, and have other resources which will benefit advertisers of any nationality. Advertise responsibly that better mousetrap you have built, and the world will beat a path to your email address. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 6] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 Appendicies Most readers of this document probably already understand why "Pyramid" or "Ponzi" schemes are fraudlent and, in most places, criminal. However, for those who do not, the following is provided. A.1 The classic pyramid In the classic pryamid scheme, there is a list of a few people, you send money to one or all of them, and then you shift that person off the list and add your name to the list and send it to N people. The idea is that when your name gets to the special place on the list, you will get lots of money. The problem is that this only works for everyone if there are an infinite number of people available. As an example, lets look at a message with a list of four people where you send five dollars to each, drop the top name, and add your name at the bottom. There is probably also some stuff about sending "reports" to people who send in money. And assume the rules encourage you to send out lots of copies until you get ten direct responses, 100 second level responses, etc., and claim there is a guarantee that you will make lots of money fast if you follow the procedure. First, note that someone or group has to have started this. When they did, they got to specify all four names so it was probably four people working together to split any profits they might get from being the top of the pyramid (or maybe they send out four versions of the original letter with their name order rotated). And while the letters that accompany these things usually have all kinds of junk in them about following the instructions exactly, the most rational thing for you to do if you decided to participate in such a thing, would be to (1) send no money to anyone else, and (2) find three other people and replace all the names on the list. But lets assume that not just you but everyone who ever participates decides to follow the "rules" and to avoid the start up transient, lets assume that it starts with one name on the list and for the next three layers of people, a name gets added and only after the list is up to four does everyone start dropping the top name. What does this look like after nine levels if everything works perfectly? The following table shows, for nine levels, how many people have to participate, what each person pays out, gets in, and nets. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 7] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 Level People Out In Net 1 1 0 $55,550 $55,550 2 10 $5 $55,550 $55,545 3 100 $10 $55,550 $55,540 4 1,000 $15 $55,550 $55,535 5 10,000 $20 $55,550 $55,530 6 100,000 $20 $5,550 $5,530 7 1,000,000 $20 $550 $530 8 10,000,000 $20 $50 $30 9 100,000,000 $20 0 -20 So if this scheme ever got this far, which is pretty unlikely, over 10,000 people would have made the "guaranteed" over $50,000. But the problem is that to do that, a hundred million people (or over ten thousand times are many) are out twenty dollars. And it can't continue because you are running out of people. Level 10 would take a billion people all of whom have $20 to mail off, which probably don't exist. Level 11 would take ten billion, more people than exist on the earth. Pyramid schemes are always like this. A few people who start them may make money but only because the vast majority lose money. People who particpate and expect to make any money, except possibly those who start it, are being defrauded and for this reason such scheme are illegal in many countries. A.2 What about Ponzi? A Ponzi scheme is very similar to a pyramid except that all the money goes through a single location. They are named after a person in Boston who claimed to have a way to earn huge returns on money by buying international postal reply coupons and redeming them in postage for more than their cost. Early "investors" in this scheme did get paid, but only with money that later investors were putting in. He was really doing nothing with the money other than living off it and paying some of the new investors money out to old investors. Just like early pyramid participants make make money off of later ones. Just as pyramids always collapse, Ponzi schemes always collapse also; when the new people and new money run out. This can have serious consequences. People died and much of the country's savings were squandered when huge Ponzi schemes that seemed to be partly backed by the government in Albania collapsed. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 8] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 A.3 So all multi-levels are evil? No, all multi-level systems are not the same. If what you have moving around is just money and maybe "reports" or the like that are very cheap to produce, then almost certainly it is a criminal scam. If there are substantial goods and/or services being sold through the system at reasonable prices, it is more likely to be legitimate. If it says you can make lots of money "fast," "easy" or "guaranteed," be very suspicious. If it says you may be able to make lots of money by putting in lots of hard work over many months but there is no guarantee, then it may be OK. If people are paid to recruit "members" or can "buy" a high "level", it is almost certainly a criminal scam. If people are paid only for the sale of substantial goods and/or services, it is more likely to be legitimate. It may also be worth your while to look at the history of the organization and its founders/leaders. The longer it has been around, the more likely it is to continue being around. If its founders or leader have a history of fraud or crime, maybe you should think very carefully before being part of it. Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 9] Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 References [1] Steiner, P. _New Yorker_. July 5, 1993. p.61. Authors' Addresses Sally Hambridge Intel Corp 2200 Mission College Blvs Santa Clara, CA 95052 sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 318 Acton Street Carlisle, MA 01741 USA dee@cybercash.com Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 10] From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 15:02:22 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17975 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA03378; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82360 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:48:19 -0700 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com (clio.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.25]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA03371 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.2.83]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id LAA10144 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02960; Mon, 19 Apr 99 11:43:47 PDT Message-ID: <9904191843.AA02960@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:43:47 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: Adverts draft input Comments: To: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Ted/List: here's some input on what I think needs to be in the draft: (in no particular order) 1) Opt-in vs Opt-out (Opt-in = good) This is the heart of the draft. We really want to encourage people to set up web sites and mailing lists where people come to them. We also want to encourage people to put banners on other web sites. It's important to encourage advertisers to use all of the methods available without resorting to opt-out mailing lists and spamming. I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists know that subscription confirmation should be necessary in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. 2) Security considerations We need to let people know some of the pitfalls of doing business online. I think we should tell advertisers that they should encourage people to make sure credit card numbers are encrypted before purchases are made. I think that advertisers should be made aware of the problems here but that we shouldn't be too discouraging. 3) Privacy considerations We need to make sure that we tell advertisers that privacy laws are differnt in different jurisdictions and that if they are gathering user data they need to be careful that they aren't breaking any laws. That's my first pass. Sally sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com PS - sabbatical was wonderful. The Panama Canal is fascinating. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 16:25:25 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19303 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA07779; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82568 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:11:48 -0700 Received: from erlenstar.demon.co.uk (erlenstar.demon.co.uk [194.222.144.22]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA07772 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from andrew@localhost) by erlenstar.demon.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA28953; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:09:06 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from andrew) References: <9904191843.AA02960@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> X-Mayan-Date: Long count = 12.19.6.2.3; tzolkin = 12 Akbal; haab = 11 Pop X-Pgp-0x0E9FFBE9: 87 25 7F 14 41 24 B3 51 E0 19 8B DE 49 74 0C 29 X-Attribution: AG Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Message-ID: <87so9w2x0d.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:09:06 +0100 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Andrew Gierth Subject: Re: Adverts draft input Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: Sally Hambridge's message of "Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:43:47 PDT" >>>>> "Sally" == Sally Hambridge writes: Sally> I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists Sally> know that subscription confirmation should be necessary Sally> in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. This also applies to virtually any situation where email-addresses are entered on web forms for the purpose of subsequent mailings. Mailing list operators should also archive those subscription confirmations as evidence that they are not engaging in unsolicited mail. Confirmations should include the full headers of the email subscription, or the source IP of a web access. -- Andrew. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 16:52:28 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19774 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08382; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82675 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:41:22 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08375 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:41:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L8P9>; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:42:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:42:45 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: Re: Adverts draft input To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Sally wrote: > Ted/List: here's some input on what I think needs to be in the > draft: (in no particular order) > > 1) Opt-in vs Opt-out (Opt-in = good) > I agree wholeheartedly. We have to recognize that people are going to want to do this sort of thing, and set the guidelines within which we can all exist. > I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists > know that subscription confirmation should be necessary > in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. > At the risk of saying "Me too"... > 2) Security considerations > We need to let people know some of the pitfalls of > doing business online. I think we should tell advertisers > that they should encourage people to make sure credit > card numbers are encrypted before purchases are made. > I think that advertisers should be made aware of the > problems here but that we shouldn't be too discouraging. > I think we need to be very careful there, lest we create more adversarial conditions than provide support. It makes sense to point those things out in the draft, but I think we should make a point of being clear, concise, and not spending too much time repeating how dangerous e-commerce can be. If we do that, we force businesses to go on the defensive, I think. > 3) Privacy considerations > We need to make sure that we tell advertisers that privacy > laws are differnt in different jurisdictions and that if they > are gathering user data they need to be careful that they aren't > breaking any laws. > What Sally said... :-) > PS - sabbatical was wonderful. The Panama Canal is fascinating. > I'm jealous! Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 16:56:41 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19835 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08462; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82683 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:45:17 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08455 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L8QB>; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:46:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:46:46 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: Re: Adverts draft input To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com > >>>>> "Sally" == Sally Hambridge writes: > > Sally> I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists > Sally> know that subscription confirmation should be necessary > Sally> in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. > > This also applies to virtually any situation where email-addresses > are entered on web forms for the purpose of subsequent mailings. > Agreed. But, this is also a place where the "establishment" will give a lot of argument. I'm currently having quite the go-around with RealNetworks over this very thing. They keep sending me things, I keep unsubscribing. Standoff. > Mailing list operators should also archive those subscription > confirmations as evidence that they are not engaging in unsolicited > mail. > It would be nice. But, how to cause that? It's asking them to take on additional overhead, in a medium where there is little to no overhead that they need to consider as it is (cost shifting, et al) > Confirmations should include the full headers of the email > subscription, or the source IP of a web access. > I would vote for the first (headers). Asking the average e-businessperson to include source IP information *may* be over their heads, and will certainly be over the heads of the typical user. Great input, Andrew. Thanks! From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 17:54:30 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20608 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:54:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id OAA09403; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82833 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:40:28 -0700 Received: from erlenstar.demon.co.uk (erlenstar.demon.co.uk [194.222.144.22]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id OAA09396 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from andrew@localhost) by erlenstar.demon.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA00618; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:37:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from andrew) References: X-Mayan-Date: Long count = 12.19.6.2.3; tzolkin = 12 Akbal; haab = 11 Pop X-Pgp-0x0E9FFBE9: 87 25 7F 14 41 24 B3 51 E0 19 8B DE 49 74 0C 29 X-Attribution: AG Lines: 74 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Message-ID: <87g15w2swn.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:37:44 +0100 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Andrew Gierth Subject: Re: Adverts draft input Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: "Gavin, Ted's message of "Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:46:46 -0400" >>>>> "Gavin" == Gavin, Ted (COR-EX) writes: [subscription confirmations by email] >> This also applies to virtually any situation where email-addresses >> are entered on web forms for the purpose of subsequent mailings. Gavin> Agreed. But, this is also a place where the "establishment" Gavin> will give a lot of argument. I'm currently having quite the Gavin> go-around with RealNetworks over this very thing. They keep Gavin> sending me things, I keep unsubscribing. Standoff. But you presumably did give them your email address in the first place (rather than someone else supplying your address to them). The point I was trying to address was the use of "enter your email address here to receive (updates on our products/messages from our mailing list/daily operating system kernels)" fields on webforms for doing the equivalent of listserv-bombing; i.e. search around to find a few hundred such sites, and write a script to submit your victim's address to them all. (It's harder with webforms than listservs, because less standardised, but as more listservs implement confirmation...) Oh, another thing: subscription confirmations should not contain anything even vaguely resembling promotional information; otherwise they are likely to be treated as disguised spamming attempts in the event of a major forge-subscription incident. >> Mailing list operators should also archive those subscription >> confirmations as evidence that they are not engaging in unsolicited >> mail. Gavin> It would be nice. But, how to cause that? It's asking them to Gavin> take on additional overhead, in a medium where there is little Gavin> to no overhead that they need to consider as it is (cost Gavin> shifting, et al) Consider the case where someone maliciously submits your address to some (say) product information mailing list, and the operator doesn't do subscription confirmations. You naturally report them to their provider for spamming; they protest to their providers abuse desk that they only send solicited mail (true from their point of view, but we've heard it all before from spammers); you insist (correctly) that you never solicited the mail. Repeat for a number of different users, and the ISP pulls the plug. Conversely, even if the mailing list operator *does* do subscription confirmation, their provider will likely get complaints of unsolicited mail *anyway* (especially if the traffic level is low, as people will forget they subscribed). In such cases, being able to respond to the complaint with "here is a copy of the email in which you confirmed your request" is likely to be the best way to keep your connectivity :-) (My views on all this are somewhat biased by a recent experience with a spammer, who was apparently claiming to his ISP that all the recipients of his mail had solicited it. Without subscription confirmations, it is hard to tell the difference between a legitimate but naive mailer who is the victim of malicious forged subscriptions, and a spammer who is posing as such.) >> Confirmations should include the full headers of the email >> subscription, or the source IP of a web access. Gavin> I would vote for the first (headers). It's not an either-or -- if the initial subscription was by email then you include the headers, if by web access then the source IP. The objective is to allow the victim of a malicious subscription to identify their attacker without having to bother the list operator about it. -- Andrew. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Mon Apr 19 21:12:03 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22333 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:12:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA11136; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82941 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:59:09 -0700 Received: from torque.pothole.com ([209.94.126.195]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id RAA11129 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:59:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by torque.pothole.com (8.8.2/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA21153 for IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 20:56:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: torque.pothole.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol X-Mts: smtp Message-ID: <199904200056.UAA21153@torque.pothole.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 20:56:40 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" Subject: Re: The ADVERTS draft, as it now stands Comments: To: IETF-RUN To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:07:18 EDT." I agree with Sally's comments. Note also my change in author info to: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd IBM 65 Shindegan Hill Road, RR #1 Carmel, NY 10512 dee3@us.ibm.com Thanks, Donald >Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 9] > >Internet Draft Make Enemies Fast March 1998 > > >References > > [1] Steiner, P. _New Yorker_. July 5, 1993. p.61. > > >Authors' Addresses > > Sally Hambridge > Intel Corp > 2200 Mission College Blvs > Santa Clara, CA 95052 > sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd > 318 Acton Street > Carlisle, MA 01741 USA > dee@cybercash.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hambridge & Eastlake Expires: 9Sep98 [Page 10] From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Apr 20 09:05:08 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08158 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA19521; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82729 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:29:15 -0700 Received: from wentzl.cdg.chalmers.se (wentzl.cdg.chalmers.se [129.16.12.9]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id FAA19514 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wilfer1.cdg.chalmers.se (6aFjpcGcDvLXHl81U3nar5p3p98WvF2o@wilfer1.cdg.chalmers.se [129.16.12.11]) by wentzl.cdg.chalmers.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29137; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:26:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from lindberg@localhost) by wilfer1.cdg.chalmers.se (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA20792; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:26:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Mailer: UCB Mail 5.3.11 1999-02-10 (MIME) Message-ID: <199904201226.OAA20792@wilfer1.cdg.chalmers.se> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:26:50 +0200 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Gunnar Lindberg Subject: Re: Adverts draft input To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <87g15w2swn.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> >From IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Mon Apr 19 23:38:15 1999 >Message-ID: <87g15w2swn.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:37:44 +0100 >From: Andrew Gierth > ... > >> Confirmations should include the full headers of the email > >> subscription, or the source IP of a web access. > Gavin> I would vote for the first (headers). >It's not an either-or -- if the initial subscription was by email >then you include the headers, if by web access then the source IP. >The objective is to allow the victim of a malicious subscription >to identify their attacker without having to bother the list operator >about it. I would also suggest adding an accurate (NTP) time stamp and time zone info in either case (mail already has it, although you may question how acccurate). Most often time is the only thing one has to turn to when trying to trace a dialup abuser. Gunnar Lindberg From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Apr 20 09:19:09 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA08516 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA20130; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 06:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 82838 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 06:06:22 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id GAA20123 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L8TZ>; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:07:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:07:49 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: Re: Adverts draft input To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com > >>>>> "Gavin" == Gavin, Ted (COR-EX) writes: > > [subscription confirmations by email] > >> This also applies to virtually any situation where email-addresses > >> are entered on web forms for the purpose of subsequent mailings. > [snip...] > The point I was trying to address was the use of "enter your email > address here to receive (updates on our products/messages from our > mailing list/daily operating system kernels)" fields on webforms for > doing the equivalent of listserv-bombing; i.e. search around to find a > few hundred such sites, and write a script to submit your victim's > address to them all. (It's harder with webforms than listservs, > because less standardised, but as more listservs implement > confirmation...) > I agree...the return mail confirmation is a good thing to have. > Oh, another thing: subscription confirmations should not contain > anything even vaguely resembling promotional information; otherwise > they are likely to be treated as disguised spamming attempts in the > event of a major forge-subscription incident. > Okay...so let's work down from there. Person goes to website, is interested in receiving updates, enters their pertinent data and e-mail address on the webform or listserv mailer. Automailer sends confirmation to the specified address, stating: E-mail address registered Headers & IP or DNS (maybe?) from which the transaction was placed Name of list Type of list (frequency, interactive or digest format) Topic of list and what else? > >> Mailing list operators should also archive those subscription > >> confirmations as evidence that they are not engaging in unsolicited > >> mail. > > Gavin> It would be nice. But, how to cause that? It's asking them to > Gavin> take on additional overhead, in a medium where there is little > Gavin> to no overhead that they need to consider as it is (cost > Gavin> shifting, et al) > > Consider the case where someone maliciously submits your address to > some (say) product information mailing list, and the operator doesn't > do subscription confirmations. You naturally report them to their > provider for spamming; they protest to their providers abuse desk that > they only send solicited mail (true from their point of view, but > we've heard it all before from spammers); you insist (correctly) that > you never solicited the mail. Repeat for a number of different users, > and the ISP pulls the plug. > Excellent point, Andrew. Archiving is for their own protection and ensures goodwill. That is something we at least have a possibility of "selling". fwiw... Ted From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Apr 20 11:29:54 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11729 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA22020; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 83158 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:13:02 -0700 Received: from crotus.sc.intel.com (crotus.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.26]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA22013 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.2.83]) by crotus.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id IAA05882 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03554; Tue, 20 Apr 99 08:08:31 PDT Message-ID: <9904201508.AA03554@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:08:31 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: This is really from Barbara Jennings Comments: To: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com As seen below - Barbara is having trouble posting. I'm getting that straightened out. But in the meantime, her input is pretty useful. For the privacy stuff, I was counting on her expertise :-). Sally sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com From bjjenni@SANDIA.GOV Tue Apr 20 08:03:12 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03533; Tue, 20 Apr 99 08:03:11 PDT Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA21919 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sass165.sandia.gov (mailgate.sandia.gov [132.175.109.1]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA21912 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandia.gov (oshaka.sandia.gov [134.253.45.46]) by sass165.sandia.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11126 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:03:53 -0600 (MDT) Sender: bjjenni@sass165.sandia.gov Message-Id: <371C9757.8A84B989@sandia.gov> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:03:52 -0600 From: Barbara Jennings X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; IRIX 6.2 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: IETF-RUN-request@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: [Fwd: Rejected posting to IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3B31C141A59679F19DC2B731" Status: R This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3B31C141A59679F19DC2B731 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Again, my replies to this list are rejected. -Barbara -- Barbara Jennings Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 jennings@sandia.gov (505)845-8554 FAX (505)844-2067 ============================================================= "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey --------------3B31C141A59679F19DC2B731 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from sass165.sandia.gov (mailgate.sandia.gov [132.175.109.1]) by es08snlnt.sandia.gov with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id 2VGT82ZT; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:26:19 -0600 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by sass165.sandia.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10376 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:26:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08222 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904192028.NAA08222@mailbag.cps.intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:28:50 -0700 From: "L-Soft list server at Intel Corporation (1.8c)" Subject: Rejected posting to IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM To: bjjenni@SANDIA.GOV You are not authorized to send mail to the IETF-RUN list from your bjjenni@SASS165.SANDIA.GOV account. You might be authorized to send to the list from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any question regarding the policy of the IETF-RUN list, please contact the list owners: IETF-RUN-request@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM. ------------------------ Rejected message (108 lines) ------------------------- Received: from sass165.sandia.gov (mailgate.sandia.gov [132.175.109.1]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id NAA08218 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandia.gov (oshaka.sandia.gov [134.253.45.46]) by sass165.sandia.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10328 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:26:18 -0600 (MDT) Sender: bjjenni@sass165.sandia.gov Message-ID: <371B916B.252CEBDB@sandia.gov> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 14:26:20 -0600 From: Barbara Jennings X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; IRIX 6.2 IP22) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF-RUN Subject: Re: Adverts draft input References: <9904191843.AA02960@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey there Sally - still have sea legs? I like your point 1, but am not certain that the reader comes away with this topic as the heart of the document. It seems like there are a couple of "themes" in this document. I think that we should encourage responsible advertising, which is woven throughout out the document. I suggest that more concentration be put on this and less on the humorous sections. Which are funny only to those of us who don't need such a draft in the first place. I don't think the section about masquerading is a good inclusion as it might "plant seed" ideas rather than discourage. Also - the sections on pyramid and ponzi .... these seem to be more for the standard email user - rather than the advertiser. How about including some examples of advertising with integrity? Mentioning portals and other suitable locations for placing ads? I did quite a lot of research on the privacy issue and would be happy to include a section on the privacy considerations. Regards, Barbara Sally Hambridge wrote: > Ted/List: here's some input on what I think needs to be in the > draft: (in no particular order) > > 1) Opt-in vs Opt-out (Opt-in = good) > This is the heart of the draft. We really want to encourage > people to set up web sites and mailing lists where people > come to them. We also want to encourage people to put > banners on other web sites. It's important to encourage > advertisers to use all of the methods available without > resorting to opt-out mailing lists and spamming. > > I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists > know that subscription confirmation should be necessary > in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. > > 2) Security considerations > We need to let people know some of the pitfalls of > doing business online. I think we should tell advertisers > that they should encourage people to make sure credit > card numbers are encrypted before purchases are made. > I think that advertisers should be made aware of the > problems here but that we shouldn't be too discouraging. > > 3) Privacy considerations > We need to make sure that we tell advertisers that privacy > laws are differnt in different jurisdictions and that if they > are gathering user data they need to be careful that they aren't > breaking any laws. > > That's my first pass. > > Sally > sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > > PS - sabbatical was wonderful. The Panama Canal is fascinating. -- Barbara Jennings Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 (505)845-8554 FAX (505)844-2067 ============================================================= "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey --------------3B31C141A59679F19DC2B731-- From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Apr 20 13:39:54 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13920 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA25865; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 83740 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:24:47 -0700 Received: from sass165.sandia.gov (mailgate.sandia.gov [132.175.109.1]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA25542 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandia.gov (oshaka.sandia.gov [134.253.45.46]) by sass165.sandia.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13655 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:12:23 -0600 (MDT) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; U; IRIX 6.2 IP22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <371CB571.ECD03A6B@sandia.gov> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:12:18 -0600 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Barbara Jennings Subject: Third times a charm? To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All - I have been watching the list and would like to reiterate that we need to identify, "What we want to say" in this document and "Who the audience is". I am seeing information that seems to cross the lines of standard email etiquette/security/and advertiser. It would be helpful for me if we could: a) identify the target audience (electronic advertiser, Joe Business owner?) b) spell out how what we want them to know (i.e., how to advertise responsibly?) c) idenfity the areas that need to be addressed: opt-in, opt-out privacy considerations mailing lists/ use and misuse of anti spam legislation - be aware legitimate advertising options ads with integrity - i.e., identifying yourself (header, time, etc) what to expect from advertising on the net? ( Success examples ) Also, I thought that I would assist you in pulling out the areas of concern from the message that Salley forwarded to you all. -- Barbara Hey there Sally - still have sea legs? I like your point 1, but am not certain that the reader comes away with this topic as the heart of the document. It seems like there are a couple of "themes" in this document. I think that we should encourage responsible advertising, which is woven throughout out the document. I suggest that more concentration be put on this and less on the humorous sections. Which are funny only to those of us who don't need such a draft in the first place. I don't think the section about masquerading is a good inclusion as it might "plant seed" ideas rather than discourage. Also - the sections on pyramid and ponzi .... these seem to be more for the standard email user - rather than the advertiser. How about including some examples of advertising with integrity? Mentioning portals and other suitable locations for placing ads? I did quite a lot of research on the privacy issue and would be happy to include a section on the privacy considerations. Regards, Barbara Sally Hambridge wrote: > Ted/List: here's some input on what I think needs to be in the > draft: (in no particular order) > > 1) Opt-in vs Opt-out (Opt-in = good) > This is the heart of the draft. We really want to encourage > people to set up web sites and mailing lists where people > come to them. We also want to encourage people to put > banners on other web sites. It's important to encourage > advertisers to use all of the methods available without > resorting to opt-out mailing lists and spamming. > > I think we also need to let people who run mailing lists > know that subscription confirmation should be necessary > in order to avoid the problem of subscription mail-bombing. > > 2) Security considerations > We need to let people know some of the pitfalls of > doing business online. I think we should tell advertisers > that they should encourage people to make sure credit > card numbers are encrypted before purchases are made. > I think that advertisers should be made aware of the > problems here but that we shouldn't be too discouraging. > > 3) Privacy considerations > We need to make sure that we tell advertisers that privacy > laws are differnt in different jurisdictions and that if they > are gathering user data they need to be careful that they aren't > breaking any laws. > > That's my first pass. > > Sally > sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > > PS - sabbatical was wonderful. The Panama Canal is fascinating. -- Barbara Jennings Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 (505)845-8554 FAX (505)844-2067 ============================================================= "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Tue Apr 20 13:42:07 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13960 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:42:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA25977; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 83807 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:28:07 -0700 Received: from cor.pennvent.com ([12.3.208.92]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id KAA25970 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by AIRMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2TW1L8Y5>; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:29:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:29:43 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: "Gavin, Ted (COR-EX)" Subject: FW: Topics from Barbara Jennings To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com > Second attempt: > > Second time's a charm :-) > > I have been watching the list and would like to reiterate > that we need to identify, "What we want to say" in this document > and "Who the audience is". I am seeing information that seems > to cross the lines of standard email etiquette/security/and > advertiser. > > It would be helpful for me if we could: > a) identify the target audience (electronic advertiser, Joe > Business owner?) > > My understanding is that the intended audience is prospective > advertiser and business owner.. > > b) spell out how what we want them to know (i.e., how to advertise > responsibly?) > > c) idenfity the areas that need to be addressed: > > opt-in, opt-out > privacy considerations > mailing lists/ use and misuse of > anti spam legislation - be aware > legitimate advertising options > ads with integrity - i.e., identifying yourself (header, time, etc) > what to expect from advertising on the net? ( Success examples ) > > I would include failure examples, and analysis of failures as well. > > How about including some examples of advertising with integrity? > Mentioning portals and other suitable locations for placing ads? > > I did quite a lot of research on the privacy issue and would be happy > to include a section on the privacy considerations. > > Since privacy is germane to the anti-spam discussion, I think it would be > an asset. > > tg From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 21 10:22:47 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07228 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id HAA10080; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 85315 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:04:49 -0700 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com (clio.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.25]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id HAA10073 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.2.83]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id HAA12138 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04518; Wed, 21 Apr 99 07:00:19 PDT Message-ID: <9904211400.AA04518@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:00:19 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: Really from JCDill Comments: To: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com JC Dill asked me to forward this. I will figure out how she subscribed and get that info to her. In the meantime, here is her input. Sally sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com From jcdill@vo.cnchost.com Tue Apr 20 20:40:24 1999 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04228; Tue, 20 Apr 99 20:40:19 PDT Errors-To: Received: from renown.cnchost.com (renown.concentric.net [207.155.248.7]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id UAA01144 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tango.concentric.net ([209.31.229.240]) by renown.cnchost.com (8.9.3/) id XAA12642; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:39:07 -0400 (EDT) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.5] Errors-To: Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990420202634.0100b5e8@pop3.vo.cnchost.com> X-Header-Extra: This is an extra header. Just for fun, OK? X-Sender: jcdill%vo.cnchost.com@pop3.vo.cnchost.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:44:42 -0700 To: Sally Hambridge From: JC Dill Subject: Re: Adverts draft input Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: R Hi Sally, I can't for the life of me find the email where I was resubscribed to this list under my vo.cnchost.com domain. So I can't find what username I used for this list. jcdill doesn't work (received a bounce message when I tried to post this earlier today). Can you A) post this to the list for me and B) find out what username I am subscribed with? Thanks muchly! jc }Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:15:10 -0700 }To: IETF-RUN }From: JC Dill }Subject: Re: Adverts draft input }Cc: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM } }On 09:07 AM 4/20/99 -0400, Gavin, Ted (COR-EX) wrote: } } }>> Oh, another thing: subscription confirmations should not contain }>> anything even vaguely resembling promotional information; otherwise }>> they are likely to be treated as disguised spamming attempts in the }>> event of a major forge-subscription incident. }>> }>Okay...so let's work down from there. }> }>Person goes to website, is interested in receiving updates, enters }>their pertinent data and e-mail address on the webform or listserv }>mailer. Automailer sends confirmation to the specified address, stating: } }Isn't this covered in the various "how to setup and administer a mailing list" RFCs (1855? any successors?) already? Perhaps all we need to do is mention that the company should already be following standard mailing list rules. } }If it isn't covered in the other RFCs then perhaps updating those RFCs is part of this "project"? } }> } }1. The company you have registered WITH (the name of the list isn't always indicative). } }>E-mail address registered }>Headers & IP or DNS (maybe?) from which the transaction was placed } }yes } }>Name of list }>Type of list (frequency, interactive or digest format) }>Topic of list }> }>and what else? } } } }> }>> >> Mailing list operators should also archive those subscription }>> >> confirmations as evidence that they are not engaging in unsolicited }>> >> mail. }>> }>> Gavin> It would be nice. But, how to cause that? It's asking them to }>> Gavin> take on additional overhead, in a medium where there is little }>> Gavin> to no overhead that they need to consider as it is (cost }>> Gavin> shifting, et al) }>> }>> Consider the case where someone maliciously submits your address to }>> some (say) product information mailing list, and the operator doesn't }>> do subscription confirmations. You naturally report them to their }>> provider for spamming; they protest to their providers abuse desk that }>> they only send solicited mail (true from their point of view, but }>> we've heard it all before from spammers); you insist (correctly) that }>> you never solicited the mail. Repeat for a number of different users, }>> and the ISP pulls the plug. }>> }>Excellent point, Andrew. Archiving is for their own protection and ensures }>goodwill. That is something we at least have a possibility of "selling". } }I think we should focus "in general" on the safeguards responsible companies will take to ensure that their advertisements are desired and welcomed, and the *benefits* to using those safeguards (draw a comparison with using a secure server to conduct e-commerce?). } }jc } From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 21 11:17:16 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08759 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA10645; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 85388 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:02:49 -0700 Received: from rmx07.globecomm.net (rmx07.iname.net [165.251.8.75]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA10638 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from weba4.iname.net by rmx07.globecomm.net (8.9.1/8.8.0) with ESMTP id LAA27105 ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by weba4.iname.net (8.9.1a/8.9.2.Alpha2) id LAA13482; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:00:23 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <9904211100237L.06152@weba4.iname.net> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:00:23 -0400 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Thomas Evans Subject: I agree...and disagree Comments: To: IETF To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This document is intended to guide advertisers and business owners through what is a new and confusing medium for them. They need this guidence and would probably welcome any suggestions that the online community have to give. What executives are looking for is advice and solutions. We would be wise not to approach this document with hostility. Tell them what works. Give them data and examples and they'll follow the lead of responsible network advertising. They don't want consumers to have a negative image of their product or company. If it is made clear to them that sending unsolicited email is similar to a salesman barging into the consumers home uninvited and unexpected, they will be less willing to use that approach. Another thing: I don't see why confirmation messages should not contain further promotional material. The people who are recieving them obviousely want similar information. I am not bothered when I recieve paper mail that I have solicited and read a small blurb about further promotional opportunities. I just worry that too many restrictions will seem unreasonable and I think that this one may cross that line. I really do think that it is important to take a positive approach to this document. too many "don'ts" and hostility will not make people accept the terms happily. Best, Thomas Evans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 21 14:50:35 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18619 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA14238; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 85882 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:35:08 -0700 Received: from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id LAA13960 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate.mot.com (MOT-motgate 1.0) with ESMTP id NAA15605 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:22:46 -0500 (CDT)] Received: [from az33exi01.corp.mot.com ([129.188.39.10]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id NAA01901 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:22:45 -0500 (CDT)] Received: by az33exi01.corp.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2417.0) id ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:33:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2417.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:32:28 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Austin Bill-P23393 Comments: To: "IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM" To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com New user friendly Motorola e-mail addresses are causing a few problems. I hope Chris Burke has been able to fix his as well. Message on Adverts follows. Bill Austin http://home.att.net/~wbaustin/ http://aztec.asu.edu/ New Motorola Piano Web Site http://www.mot.com/piano/ > > > You are not authorized to send mail to the IETF-RUN > list from your > Bill.Austin@MOTOROLA.COM account. You might be authorized to > send to the list > From: Austin Bill-P23393 > To: "'IETF-RUN'" > Subject: Subject: Re: Adverts draft input > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 07:37:21 -0700 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" Below is an example of what I see as a good citizen on the opt-in side. They are right up front with how to get off the list, they tell you which e-mail address of yours is subscribed (in case you are forwarding from seven or eight addresses like I have to.) They tell you it is an opt-in list and that they have copies. And they minimize junk on the list by not allowing autoresponders. ========================================================= > > Issue 144 -- April 21, 1999 > > ... is published on Wednesdays and distributed to over 60,000 Internet > marketers and webmasters who've asked to receive it. Thanks > for joining > us! If you ever need to unsubscribe, simply send a blank > email from the > address below to mailto:unsubscribe@...dotcom or use > the online form at http://www.dotdotdot.com/ezine.shtml > > You have received this issue at: p23393@email.mot.com > > This is an opt-in list, and we have a copy of every > subscription request > on file. If you believe someone has subscribed you against > your will and > do not wish to receive this newsletter, let us know and we > will look into > it for you. Or better yet, save yourself some time and just > unsubscribe. > > Note: We can not allow autoresponders to be subscribed to > this list, the > replies are just too many to handle. If the email address > you've received > this at sends an automated reply and you want to continue > receiving our > newsletter, please resubscribe using a different email address. > > > ========================================================= > > Bill Austin > http://home.att.net/~wbaustin/ > http://aztec.asu.edu/ > > New Motorola Piano Web Site http://www.mot.com/piano/ > > > > > }Subject: Re: Adverts draft input > > }Cc: IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM > > } > > }On 09:07 AM 4/20/99 -0400, Gavin, Ted (COR-EX) wrote: > > } > > } > > }>> Oh, another thing: subscription confirmations should not contain > > }>> anything even vaguely resembling promotional information; > > otherwise > > }>> they are likely to be treated as disguised spamming > > attempts in the > > }>> event of a major forge-subscription incident. > > > }I think we should focus "in general" on the safeguards responsible > > companies will take to ensure that their advertisements are > > desired and > > welcomed, and the *benefits* to using those safeguards (draw > > a comparison > > with using a secure server to conduct e-commerce?). > > } > > }jc > > } > > > From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 28 11:46:39 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18694 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03010; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 90364 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:26:23 -0700 Received: from crotus.sc.intel.com (crotus.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.26]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03003 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.2.83]) by crotus.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id IAA10188; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09572; Wed, 28 Apr 99 08:22:01 PDT Message-ID: <9904281522.AA09572@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:22:01 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: Oh Drat! Comments: To: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com Comments: cc: April_Marine@iengines.net To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com This is an update about junkproof.com. April, we just have a new version of the draft out. Can we get the junkproof ref removed and re-issue BEFORE the IESG approves? Jeez! Sally sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com From strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu Fri Apr 23 12:16:57 1999 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06640; Fri, 23 Apr 99 12:16:56 PDT Received: from nis.acs.uci.edu ([128.200.16.34]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA03828 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bingy.acs.uci.edu (bingy.acs.uci.edu [128.200.34.36]) by nis.acs.uci.edu (8.8.8/) with ESMTP id MAA18825 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nis.acs.uci.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bingy.acs.uci.edu (8.8.8/) with ESMTP id MAA18293 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Sender: strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu Message-Id: <3720C6B3.BB551BBF@nis.acs.uci.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:14:59 -0700 From: Dan Stromberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com Subject: www.junkproof.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: R junkproof doesn't appear to be in the DNS anymore. This is with regard to the internet draft about spam, which references the junkproof site. From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 28 12:06:14 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19077 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:06:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03303; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 90383 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:41:56 -0700 Received: from ib.rc.vix.com (ib.rc.vix.com [204.152.187.22]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03139 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bb.rc.vix.com (bb.rc.vix.com [204.152.187.11]) by ib.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id IAA03474; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT) env-from (April_Marine@isc.org) Received: from localhost (amarine@localhost) by bb.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via SMTP id IAA00495; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:29:32 -0700 (PDT) env-from (April_Marine@isc.org) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:29:32 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: April Marine Subject: Re: Oh Drat! Comments: To: Sally Hambridge Comments: cc: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com, April_Marine@iengines.net To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <9904281522.AA09572@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> You know, I haven't even seen that ID come thru, have you? At any rate, we can address that edit (assuming the ID is approved by IESG) with a note to the RFC Editor to delete it. Thanks for spotting it! April On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Sally Hambridge wrote: > This is an update about junkproof.com. April, we just have a > new version of the draft out. Can we get the junkproof > ref removed and re-issue BEFORE the IESG approves? > > Jeez! > Sally > sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > > >From strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu Fri Apr 23 12:16:57 1999 > Received: from clio.sc.intel.com by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA06640; Fri, 23 Apr 99 12:16:56 PDT > Received: from nis.acs.uci.edu ([128.200.16.34]) > by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id MAA03828 > for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:18:59 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from bingy.acs.uci.edu (bingy.acs.uci.edu [128.200.34.36]) by nis.acs.uci.edu (8.8.8/) with ESMTP id MAA18825 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:15:04 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from nis.acs.uci.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bingy.acs.uci.edu (8.8.8/) with ESMTP id MAA18293 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT) > Sender: strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu > Message-Id: <3720C6B3.BB551BBF@nis.acs.uci.edu> > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:14:59 -0700 > From: Dan Stromberg > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) > X-Accept-Language: en > Mime-Version: 1.0 > To: sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > Subject: www.junkproof.com > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Status: R > > > junkproof doesn't appear to be in the DNS anymore. > > This is with regard to the internet draft about spam, which references > the junkproof site. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- April Marine Director of Support Services +1.650.779.6006 Internet Engines Incorporated april_marine@iengines.net From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 28 12:08:07 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19102 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03222; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 90398 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:38:17 -0700 Received: from clio.sc.intel.com (clio.sc.intel.com [143.183.152.25]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03215 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Ludwig.sc.intel.com (ludwig.sc.intel.com [143.183.2.83]) by clio.sc.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with SMTP id IAA12815; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by Ludwig.sc.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09605; Wed, 28 Apr 99 08:33:58 PDT Message-ID: <9904281533.AA09605@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:33:58 PDT Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: Sally Hambridge Subject: Re: Oh Drat! Comments: To: April Marine Comments: cc: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Saw the -08 announcement this week. Glad we can delete the ref after the fact. Whew! Sally sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com April wrote: >You know, I haven't even seen that ID come thru, have you? >At any rate, we can address that edit (assuming the ID is approved by >IESG) with a note to the RFC Editor to delete it. >Thanks for spotting it! >April From IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com Wed Apr 28 12:16:58 1999 Received: from mailbag.cps.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19298 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailbag.intel.com (mailbag.cps.intel.com [192.102.199.72]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03597; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAILBAG.INTEL.COM by MAILBAG.INTEL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 90416 for IETF-RUN@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:51:43 -0700 Received: from isrv3.pa.vix.com (isrv3.pa.vix.com [204.152.184.182]) by mailbag.cps.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.6 1998/11/24 22:10:56 iwep Exp iwep $) with ESMTP id IAA03295 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bb.rc.vix.com (bb.rc.vix.com [204.152.187.11]) by isrv3.pa.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id IAA19727; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:39:20 -0700 (PDT) env-from (April_Marine@isc.org) Received: from localhost (amarine@localhost) by bb.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via SMTP id IAA00654; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:39:20 -0700 (PDT) env-from (April_Marine@isc.org) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:39:20 -0700 Reply-To: IETF-RUN Sender: IETF-RUN From: April Marine Subject: Re: Oh Drat! Comments: To: Sally Hambridge Comments: cc: ietf-run@mailbag.cps.intel.com To: IETF-RUN@mailbag.cps.intel.com In-Reply-To: <9904281533.AA09605@Ludwig.sc.intel.com> You did? Where the heck was I? And I just pinged Steve! Oh DRAT!! Must now eat crow... A. On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Sally Hambridge wrote: > > Saw the -08 announcement this week. > > Glad we can delete the ref after the fact. Whew! > > Sally > sallyh@ludwig.sc.intel.com > > April wrote: > >You know, I haven't even seen that ID come thru, have you? > > >At any rate, we can address that edit (assuming the ID is approved by > >IESG) with a note to the RFC Editor to delete it. > > >Thanks for spotting it! > >April > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- April Marine Director of Support Services +1.650.779.6006 Internet Engines Incorporated april_marine@iengines.net