home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
run
/
run-minutes-97apr.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1997-05-29
|
4KB
|
116 lines
Editor's Note: These minutes have not been edited.
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Gary Malkin/Bay Networks
Minutes of the Responsible Use of the Network Working Group (RUN)
Status Update
Chairpersons Sally Hambridge / sallyh@ludwig.intel.com
Gary Scott Malkin / gmalkin@baynetworks.com
Mailing List ietf-run@mailbag.intel.com
To subscribe listserv@mailbag.intel.com
In body of message subscribe ietf-run
Archives ftp://ftp.intel.com:pub/ietf-run
Date of meeting Memphis IETF / April 9, 1997
Progress This was the second meeting of the revived RUN
WG. The group met in a short (one hour) time
slot. We accomplished all of the goals set forth
in the Agenda for the meeting; specifically, we
reviewed the current Internet Draft and began
to outline the next document (on advertising).
Agenda
10 mins - Introductions/Administrivie
30 mins - Discuss current Internet Draft
15 mins - Begin discussion of Advertising doc
5 mins - AOB - wrap-up
The primary topic discussed during the meeting was the review of the
"Don't Spew" Internet Draft. There were several suggested changes,
primarily the title. There was an argument whether or not we should
use "Spam" or "Spew." It was pointed out that "spew" had another,
well known meaning, and that "spam" had a similarly well-known
meaning. The concern is over copyright and defamation over "Spam" the
Hormel product. Joyce Reynolds will discuss this issue with Scott
Bradner. Another suggested name was MUMPs (Mass Unsolicited Mail
Postings). The issue of misuse of resources (a crime for US
government resources, for example) was also raised, but there was no
concensus on what to say about it.
In section 2:
-Need to address issue of commercial model vs ethical model
-Address difference between commercial spech and protected political speach?
Internet access is a privilege, not a right
-Since costs change, talk about volume instead
-Is it OK for companies to require you to give your email address before
allowing you to download software (putting people on mailing lists
whether or not they want it)
In section 3:
-Don't become the enemy
-Reply vs Group Reply
-The "From" field may not be the real originator
-Just ignore the message - only tell your own postmaster (let them deal
with it). CC:ing postmaster may generate too much traffic; however,
postmaster needs to know so that spammers can be blocked. Check your
sites policy
-Use abuse address if one exists
In section 4:
-Improper use of equipment
-Include news
-Provide kill files so that users don't need to know how to create them
-Black holes
In section 5:
-Stronger language
-Use service agreements (contracts) as the tool to disconnect bad
users/sites. Point to some sample Terms and Conditions agreements
Need Security Considerations because of denial of service issues
The group also started discussion about a companion document about how
to advertise on the Internet in the proper ways. Logically, these two
documents belong together, but the time pressure to get out the first
document is too great. One alternative to creating a new document is
to re-release the Spew/Spam document with the advertising material.
We hope to have an Internet Draft ready by the Munich meeting.
Advertsing FYI
How to use passive methods successfully
- have a web site
- purchase advertising space on web sites
- allow people to join a mailing list (but don't arbitrarily populate it)
- pointers in reasonable length .sigs
Full disclosure of mailing list usage
Include addresses, phone numbers, reply-to addresses
No state management across domains
No mail header munging; legitimate unsubscribes
Learn which groups allow ads, resumes, etc.
Learn the legal stuff related to what you want to do and where you want
to do it
A good ad gives something back to the user
Two docs should point to each other