Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:53:58 +0000
Dave Wilson said:
> (ii) Spam is such a problem that it's fair to say that recoding and
> reinstalling MTA's will happen lightning quick, at least among those who care.
Agreed.
> In this context, messing with X-headers is likely an approach that will come
> back to haunt us later.
[...]
> A legally-defined "grace period" where spammers may
> use X-headers while they get their MTAs recoded has a certain appeal, but if
> we allow just X-headers, we'll be stuck with X-headers.
Ignore for the moment the question of the header name ("X-UCE", "This-is-UCE",
etc.) as that is a minor detail.
The *message*, not the envelope, needs to contain the "this is UCE" flag in
a machine-parsable manner. You cannot guarantee that the envelope will
survive from one end to the other, whereas the whole purpose of email is to
get the message from A to B.
Adding a UCE flag to the ESMTP handshake is a nice idea, and recoding MTAs
to spot the X-UCE header and set the flag is even nicer. But getting the
flag into the message headers is the vital thing.
> Again, I really think that potential spammers should be *highly encouraged* to
> use proper, "efficient" spamming tools, which comply with all applicable
> laws,
Agreed. I don't see an incompatibility with what I've written.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Email: clive@localhost | Tel: +44 1733 705000
Regulation Officer | Home: clive@localhost | or: +44 973 377646
London Internet Exchange | | Fax: +44 1733 353929
