From: "Tim Kehres" <kehres(_at_)ima(_dot_)com>
I'm not sure what your point is here. If you are trying to characterize me
as a pro-spam activist, you have missed the mark by about 180 degrees.
- Your organization sent me unsolicited bulk email as captured in
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres-spam.txt
- You claimed it was not spam with your words "We don't deal with
unsolicited bulk advertising" and other words in
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/objections/kehres-obj1.txt
- I showed it was bulk with substantially identical unsolicited
copies others received and reported in
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22ima.%2Bcom%22+group%3A*net-abuse.sightings
In your initial message to this list you wrote about vigilanttes running
blacklists as if that were a problem that needs to be solved. That cant
is too familiar in certain contexts.
In my previous postings, and which I still contend, the way we use email has
changed considerably over the years. What was perfectly acceptable 20, or
hey, even 5 years ago is at best a grey area these days in many cases.
Your organization's unsolicited bulk email advertising would have been
unacceptable 20 years ago on either Usenet or the NSFNET. It was also
unacceptable 5 years ago on the Internet and 2 years ago when it was sent.
The
definition of what is acceptable, and to whom is a moving target. This is
my point.
That point is wrong.
There was even a message to this list in this thread today
suggesting that list traffic a user deliberately signed up for could be
considered spam or ube.
I don't recall seeing that statement. If it was made, it was wrong.
...
In a separate message by Brad Templeton today, it was stated that
identification of exactly what we are trying to solve here is necessary in
order to get going properly. For me at least, this was one of the most
positive statements I've seen. With it, I hope we can also define in
concrete terms what at least we feel spam/ube is defined to be, so that we
can minimize the effects of designing to a moving target.
I agree that it would be good to get some defintions, or some good
words. The word "spam" is a lost cause and permanently ill-defined
because advertisers insist it is "that which we don't do" while others
say it is "any mail I don't (or even no longer) want."
"UBE" is well enough defined.
Can we move on from here? If not, and we need to has this out offline,
just let me know - I'd hate to see misperceptions get in the way of moving
forward.
You and I cannot continue offline, because I cannot see any likelihood
that ima.com will be removed from
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/spammers-i.html or more accurately,
from the sendmail access_DB those pages represent. That access_DB
makes it impossible for me to receive private mail from you or other
mail from ima.com.
However, if you will stop saying things like "UBE is not defined" and
related things common in certain circles, then I will pretend ima.com
has not sent me unsolicited bulk email advertising. As I've written
elsewhere, all big outfits send some spam. Occassional spam puts an
outfit beyond the pale only when the outfit claims its unsolicited bulk
advertising is not spam, because that suggests it won't try to stop.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg