On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:44:45AM +0000, Danny Angus wrote
You will find a document which outlines an idea I've had for a while.
Please give me your comments on this list.
The thrust of the document is that while we don't know what the silver
bullet solution for spam is we do know some of the characteristics
which we expect it to exhibit.
Item number 0) Avoid using "the S word"
Rationale: If you set up a technical definition of spam, some lawyer
or wannabee-lawyer *WILL* find a loophole in it. And there are some
legal jurisdictions that have defined spam, and allowed explicit
exemptions. The result will be a constant battle of technicalities.
And calling someone's email "spam" can result in lawsuits by "legitimate
bidnizzmen". Simply saying that you don't want certain email, without
calling its senders "spammers", is less of a legal risk. In other
words, "because I said so" should be sufficient reason for a person to
reject email for their inbox. My inbox, my rules.
Item number 1) Assume that senders of unwanted email may be hostile,
unethical, sleazy lawbreakers who will resort to all means at their
disposal to get their unwanted email delivered to their target. If your
proposed solution will not work in such an environment, forget about it.
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)waltdnes(_dot_)org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
Asrg mailing list