Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this.
BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some
BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than
BT> a few hundred people
if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people,
soliciting money, is that not spam?
If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by one
entity, then no, it would not be under this definition.
Have we seen a lot of this happening? I think it is vital in this issue
not to solve hypotheticals that are not actually taking place, so if you
wish to add to the definition (rather than take away, since this is an
intersection definition I propose we seek) please let us know what real
world experience leads you to feel it needs adding.
BT> The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has
BT> had voluntary contact with the sender in the past
Anyone you have ever had contact with is thereby authorized to send you
a solicitation?
Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not
strangers to you? And in this case, how many problems have you had with
getting removed from their lists? If you have some numbers, let me know.
My own experience is that UBE from parties known to me is rare, and for those
parties not to honour a remove request immediately is extremely rare.
In fact, I have only had a few instances in the past 5 years of non-immediate
removal wrt known parties, and even there it just took a few days longer.
And that's with personally receiving several hundred thousand spams, in other
words, a non-problem.
I am curious as to what numbers others have on this issue. What are yours?
BT> Is commercial (Many people request this in the
definition,
BT> but usually only if not including the mass mailing
BT> component, so this might not stay)
Unsolicited political or religious mailings are acceptable?
As you can tell from my comment, this one is not mine. Nonetheless, it has
been in many definitions that people have put forward.
BT> The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the
BT> recipient
Everyone gets one free shot at abusing (or, ummm, rather "stuffing")
your mailbox?
Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free shot."
In my experience, this does not create a problem, because the number of
people you voluntarily communicate with is inherently limited.
Again, I am curious as to the numbers that lead you to your view. Have
you seen a significant problem in spam from people you have communicated
with in the past? What fraction of your total spam is it?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg