Very good point and consistent with my approach of managing my own
exposure.
We should separate any discussion of content into a legacy hack category
-- what do you do after your one true name is revealed. Sort of like
firewalls for naïve systems that predate the awareness of the Internet.
We can then focus on managing our exposure and messaging without having
to second guess the intent of a message -- a task that should be left to
poets and philosophers and sophomores.
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Alan
DeKok
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 18:36
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] Content versus conversation
As a non-US resident, I won't get into U.S. laws.
I would say, though, that content filtering (which may be useful1 on
an individual level) should be outside of the scope of this group.
The problem with spam is not the content, but the conversation.
Spam is unwanted conversation, not unwanted content. That alone
means that any recipient-based filtering scheme will never be a
solution to the spam problem. Those methods may help individuals deal
with their spam problem, but they will never help the network deal
with it.
As conversation and not content, spam is like getting flowers from a
stalker. It's nice in a normal relationship, but in the context of
stalking, it's creepy and often illegal.
The idea of "free speech" similarly relates to content, not to
conversation. Anyone is free to say anything they want, but if they
follow me around and yell in my ear, it's harassment.
On the other extreme, if every day I was receiving 100,000
legitimate offers to give me $10, I probably wouldn't treat them as
spam. (And I wouldn't be on this list.)
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg