On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:08 -0800
Brad Templeton <brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:59:16PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
To a recipient, spam is mail he finds annoying, doesn't want to receive,
and
To an ISP, spam is what violates its AUP. Alternately, it's what
customers To a sender, spam is whatever someone else is doing. No spammer
sees himself
The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against
it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute.
I don't think it's necessary, or particularly useful, for us to try to nail
down "the" definition of spam in objective terms.
I agree (for the reasons you cited, and probably others) that the definition
of spam used in anti-spam laws needs to be different than a recipient's
definition of spam. The kind of spam that a recipient wants to block, or that
an ISP might want to forbid, might not match the definition of spam in
anti-spam laws. And it might be useful for a recipient to be able to block
things that don't match the legal definition, and for ISPs to be able to
filter such traffic based on a recipient's instrctions. If nothing else, such
laws and their definitions of spam will vary from one jurisdiction to
another.
However, for a system to be implemented by the IETF or similar body,
a much narrower concensus is required, as this will be the default
for much of the E-mail system of the world.
I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of blocking
or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read this IRTF
group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg