Subject: New draft to read

From: Sally Hambridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT

IETF-Runners - Ted send out a new version of the Adverts draft,
an announcement of which I have yet to see on this list.
(Meaning probably that it bounced since the sender is
probably not subscribed.  Ted's address also seems to
not be correct, so his announcement also bounced, sigh..)

So please go to your local drafts archives and pick up
version 2 of the adverts draft

(draft-ieft-run-adverts-02.txt) and read it and let's get a discussion
going and decide if we need a meeting in Pittsburgh or whether
we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC.

Thanks!
Sally

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:54:45 -0400

I think this document is in good shape.  I have some minor points
which are all appended at the end of this message.

I don't think we need to meet in Pittsburgh unless there is substantial
new work being proposed.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  Sally Hambridge <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:   <[email-masked]>
Date:          Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:13:47 PDT
Reply-To:  IETF-RUN <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]

>we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC.

There seem to be occasional blank lines...if these can't be easily
fixed I suppose the RFC editor can get them...

Section 1
   Because the recipients have no control over whether or not they
>                              ^^
>                            little
   will receive such messages, the aforementioned costs are realized
   involuntarily, and without consent. It is this condition (the

Section 7
   Opt-In mailing lists are consistently shown to be more effective in
   starting and maintaining customer relationships than any other type
   of Internet advertising; studies have shown Opt-In mailing to be
>                                                                ^^
>                                             have a response rate of
   Eighteen (18%) Percent more effective than Banner advertising [5].
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^
>                                while                              ^
>                                                                   ^
>                                   only has a response rate of 0.65%.

Section 7.A
      refer to Appendix C of this document.
>                       ^
>                       B

Section 7.B: Although your-site.example is used in some places, most
use foo.bar as an example domain name.  Some day, "bar" may be a valid
top level domain name so I sould suggst replacing with foo.example or
example.com or other forms approved in RFC 2606.

Section 8
   regarding those types of "investments", refer to Appendix 1 of
>                                                            ^
>                                                            A

Appendix A
Section A.1
   In the classic Pyramid scheme, there is a list of a few people. A
   participant sends money to one or all of them, and then shifts that
>                                                                 ^^^^
>                                                                 one
   person off the list and adds their own name. The participant then
   sends the same message to N people....

Replacement Author Info for myself:
        Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
>       Motorola
>       140 Forest Avenue
>       Hudson, MA 01749 USA
>       [email-masked]

---

From: Travel Curse <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:09:47 -0400

>not be correct, so his announcement also bounced, sigh..)

Hummm...maybve this one will work? <hopehopehope>

As I mentioned in the last announcement, all of the changes
reccommended at Washington, DC are incorporated, as far as I can tell.
If I've missed anything, please let me know.

The only thing we are missing is the inclusion of legal cites. I'm
working on that, and I'd like to get the General Counsel of AOL
involved, since they pioneered the successful lawsuit for domain-name
forgery. If anyone else has a legal resource available to them, and
can get cites of this nature, now would be the perfect time to raise
your ascii hand.

>version 2 of the adverts draft

It's also at
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~tedgavin/draft-ietf-run-adverts-02.txt

>we're all satisfied enough with the draft to move it to RFC.

What Sally said :-)

Ted (*really* hoping I can post again)
------------------------------------------------------------
From Judith Stone's "Ten Potentially Top-Grossing Films for
the Video-Incompatible Couple":

Number 6 - "Scenes From a Mall and the Night Visitors"