The *ONLY* difference is that the people behind "legitimate marketing
stuff" make campaign contributions, and there's less liklihood of the
"legitimate" spam advertising stuff that's blatantly illegal. Folks,
it's about *CONSENT* not *CONTENT*.
This phrase may be the crux of one large division in the anti-spam
community.
There are a number of people who do believe it's about consent. If
they simply meant "explicit consent", it would be something which could
be the subject of debate, but unfortunately when I have seen this used
it is always about a fairly unspecified sort of implicit consent, whose
definition varies from person to person.
Now, that alone would be reason to avoid trying to work in terms of
consent, but there is a much greater fundamental flaw with this concept.
One which will shock some anti-spam folks at first.
In free societies, you don't need advance consent to communicate with
somebody else. Consent can be rescinded, as in "go away" but it is always
on by default.
And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of the
private property of the other party to the communication, it means you don't
need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate with
them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed, only
a right not be harassed.
To define communication without advance consent as some sort of offence
would turn our definitions of a free society and an open communications system
upside-down. If somebody gave you a URL, you could not click on it without
knowing if the web host consented to you clicking on it. If you got a referral
where I told you to e-mail my friend, you could not mail him for fear you did
not have his consent. And If I want to mail you to flame you about how stupid
the opinion you posted on your web site is, well, who would suspect you give
your consent to be flamed?
In our society you can, by default, go up to somebody on the street and
talk to them. That is sometimes annoying, but it's a right we actually
fight hard to protect. You can send them postal mail, without their consent.
It is always assumed to exist in advance. It can be rescinded -- through
restraining orders, harassment charges, blockages at the post office etc. but
it is always on by default. People can even come onto your private land to
come to talk to you unless you explicitly mark it no trespassing.
So because consent would be incredibly difficult to define, and it's a bad idea
to bring it into the spam definition, I respectfully submit that other
courses should be followed.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg