Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:25:01 +0100
Anyhow, someone else (Piet?) wrote about the possible need to label
UCE more specifically than just "Yes" or "No".
Yep.
I can imagine that the people who do decide they want some UCE may
not want *all* UCE in the world
Exactly. There *is* "useful" and "useless" UCE, but the
distinction is highly individual. Categorising could well
help to at least enable people to make a distinction for
themselves without having to receive all the stuff.
Maybe a good idea would be to force all UCE to use the mandatory
"X-UCE: Yes" but at the same time suggest them to use another
non-mandatory header to more specifically say what kind of UCE
they're sending - e.g. "X-UCE-Type:" or "X-UCE-Keywords:" like this:
Why should we make it more complicated than necessary?
Just "X-UCE: <category>" will do the job. And I don't
really care how "unspecified" would be "encoded" here:
that's "for later study". ;-)
The question is how reliable such a header would be - i.e. how many
would insert any keyword they can think of just to get people to look
at the message, no matter what's in it?
That might become a problem, yes.
Maybe limiting the number of keywords would help that, of course.
Definitely: I see a need for a rather small number of
categories here.
Piet
