[anti-spam-wg] Request for comments on MAAWG Email Senders’ Best Communications Practices draft
To: RIPE anti-spam WG anti-spam-wg@localhost
From: Dave Crocker dhc@localhost
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:34:31 -0800
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
I am writing to you on behalf of the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group
<http://maawg.org>. The purpose of this note is to solicit RIPE's comments
on our recent, draft Email Senders’ Best Communications Practices document,
prior to its official release. The draft is located at
We want to revise the draft, based on insights from a broad range of interested
and knowledgeable parties. We also are interested in exploring the document’s
being co-sponsored under the auspices of MAAWG and RIPE.
If you were not aware of MAAWG, the group’s focus is on preserving electronic
messaging from online exploits and abuse, with the goal of enhancing usertrust
and confidence, while ensuring the deliverability of legitimate messages. The
Senders BCP effort is one of the initiatives that MAAWG is pursuing, to reduce
messaging abuse while enabling legitimate messages to obtain unimpeded delivery.
MAAWG membership is diverse and the referenced content reflects the perspectives
of both leading email senders and receivers. We believe that conformance with
the Senders BCP will improve deliverability for legitimate messages, yet lay a
substantial foundation for successful dispute resolution. We believe this
document reflects a global perspective on successful messaging and welcome any
insights that can further detail or delineate best practices for bulk senders.
At your convenience, but prior to our comments deadline of 12/22/06, please
provide specific edits and comments about the BCP to: senderbcp@localhost.
Thank you for your consideration of this important effort. I look forward to
ps. You will no doubt guess that the above is a standardized letter. We wanted
to give a consistent message to those we are soliciting for comment. On
reflection, I note that a) it is unsolicited, b) it is being sent in bulk, and
c) it requests readers to take action. With any luck, it won't be classed as
spam, and the reason will be more than "Dave is a good guy" or the like. But I
do find myself wondering about boundary conditions...