AMEN - a kick-start from Brad.
On Friday, March 28, 2003 4:25 PM, Brad Templeton
[SMTP:brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com]
wrote:
There are many components in the various definitions of spam out there, and
proposals can be created to deal with these sub-components, and thus become
tools for people to build tools to attack their vision of what spam is.
Amongst
those sub components are:
Bulk(volume) vs. Person to Person
Subscribed (Explicitly, directly solicited) vs. Unsubscribed
Reply vs. Origination
Existing Relationship vs. Stranger
These are all components of spam definitions which we can work with without
laying down a spam definition. Some other components much harder to define
are:
Parameters of implicit solicitation
Degrees of existing relationship
Now this was presented as an argument for why we can't define 'spam' but I
think it is these terms exactly that must be defined to get to a workable
solution.
-e
On Saturday, March 29, 2003 12:33 AM, Dave Crocker
[SMTP:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
wrote:
Folks,
This groups needs to settle on a single, precise, operational definition
of "spam". A definition that permits objective, reliable tests for
qualification.
We might or might not be able to get software to make that assessment,
but it at least needs to satisfy what the courts call objective.
Unless and until we start treating this topic as a technical activity,
we are certain to make no progress, and to consume quite a bit of
bandwidth while doing it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
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