I agree, I only add that it does not matter how many or what the nature of
distribution is, only that the parameters of establishing or terminating the
'consent agreement' have been invalidated by a rouge player (the 'spammer').
-e
On Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:33 AM, Chuq Von Rospach
[SMTP:chuqui(_at_)plaidworks(_dot_)com] wrote:
On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 05:36 PM, william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net wrote:
"
Spam- Towards a Working Definition
FWIW, here's MY definition of spam. I want to take content completely
out of it to the greatest extent possible.
Spam is email where there is not legitimate attempt to allow receivers
to define their consent agreement, or no legitimate attempt to honor it.
spam is that stuff that tries to hide it's consent agreement with me
through forged identification, tries to prevent me from changing that
consent agreement through fraudulent or missing return communication
paths, or ignores those change requests and doesn't intend to honor
them if I do actually get a request to them.
Spam has nothing to do with content. It has everything to do with not
allowing me to stop receiving it. How they prevent me from changing my
consent agreement is irrelevant; that they prevent me from changing it
makes it spam.
_______________________________________________
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