Brad Templeton <brad(_at_)templetons(_dot_)com> wrote;
I had always thought the best solution was to take all the major definitions,
and then take the _intersection_ of those definitions. Then look at that
intersection and say, "how much of the problem does this cover?" And more
to the point, "Does this cover enough of it to take back our mailboxes?"
It's a good start.
Remarkably, some people fight a lesser definition than what they prefer, even
if they will agree that the spams not in that definition are well under 1%
of the total. They feel it is particularly important to get every last one.
I'm not sure why, I don't see an engineering goal.
It allows people to believe they're still working against the
problem, while not having to actually do anything involving real
"work".
"Every journey begins with a single step."
Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition,
but usually only if not including the mass mailing
component, so this might not stay)
Only crazy people spend money to send out thousands of messagesm and
don't expect a monetary return. They're usually fairly easy to track
down, because of this. They're also a tiny part of the spam problem.
Witness the crazies on Usenet, years before Cantor & Siegel. The
problems they caused were annoying, but they didn't cause the furor
resulting from the first "spam" message.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg