Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:24:54 +0100
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:59:20PM +0100, Ulf Vedenbrant wrote:
> > Meanwhile: we need to decide among ourselves how we want a spam message to be
> > brought to our attention. I'm open to a combo X-UCE: Yes *plus* Subject:
> > [UCE] ...?
>
> If you put the indication of UCE in the headers inside the mail then
> all mta's has to parse the message to look for this mark.
> It is a lot more effective to check a tag in the SMTP/ESMTP negotiation...
... but that's not under the control of most senders, and it needs a lot of
recoding of MTAs before it's effective.
I suggest making an X-UCE: (or similar) header obligatory on UCE. A [UCE]
in the subject deserves credits for good style, but shouldn't be forced, IMHO.
After this is settled upon, MTAs can start using "XUCE" commands or tags
(like SIZE or ENVID) to indicate UCE to eachother, possibly saving some
net bandwidth and cpu. The XUCE tag/command should probably be given by
the transmitting MTA if the X-UCE: header is present, or if the program
doing the ESMTP talk is a massmailing program. The receiving MTA should
probably insert an X-UCE: header if one isn't present and the XUCE
tag/command is given in ESMTP.
Another thought: since we're tagging anyway, do we want "categories" of
SPAM? Like Financial (MMF spammers should set this), Technical, Erotic,
Illegal (MMF spammers should set this too :), etc...? Personally I tend
to think we shouldn't, but it's certainly an option. Choosing the categories
will be a very hard one, though.
--
#! ##### Jan-Pieter Cornet ##### johnpc@localhost ##### perl
++$_;$!=$_+++$_;($:,$,,$/,$*)=$!=~/.(.)...(.)(.).(.)/;$!=$_+$_;
($@,$\,$~)=$!=~/(.)(.).(.)/; $_="$,$/$:"; $@localhost $~="$~$_";($_)=
\$$=~/\((.)/;$|=++$_;$_++;$|++;$~="$~ $@localhost:";`$~$/$\$*$, $|>&$_`
