Re: Proposed EU Directive on Electronic Commerce

[Ulf Vedenbrant <]

On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Ragnar Lonn wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Piet Beertema wrote:
> 
> >     For example
> >     
> >     uce-spam-uce should be added to the sending address
> >     <uffe.uce-spam-uce@localhost
> > Unlikely. That would cause zillions of problems.
> >     
> >     or a new top level domain... .spam or .uce
> >     uffe@localhost
> > Possible. Routing might be a problem though.
> > 
> 
> Maybe it'd be possible to require mailers to declare that they're
> going to transmit UCE in the HELO statement? 
> Like "HELO mail.swip.net.uce"?  

I guess that it would be better in the "mail from" statement.
You already have som info in the "mail from" statement like size,7-8bit  
etc.. 

Then for each individual rctp to the receiving host could say yes/no
for each of them.

Or the ISP could set up a global noUCE policy if wanted.
I.e ansver no to all rcpt's..

/Uffe


> 
> The servers would have to separate UCE and non-UCE mail into two
> batches and send them individually so it's slightly more costly
> to propagate the mail that way, of course, but it'd be easy for
> the receiving server. Especially if it didn't tolerate UCE at all,
> in which case it could just respond 5xx to the HELO statement.
> 
>   /Ragnar
> 
>