I agree, but there is a caveat as well, that one may not successfully class all
messages in the universe of messaging, thus it is a question (to me) of how
much does it get me and how effective will it be given the effective bandwidth
I am resisting. Send 100 'classed as spam' messages toward my policy boundary
and I am probably fine. Send 100,000 mixed classed, un-classed messages and
what am I dealing with? What about one un-classed, has the system broken or is
that my acceptable 'spam' threshold? I don't know and as I said, generally I
think we can converge on consensus, but I do not agree that a precise
definition of spam will break that consensus. Besides that, I think in your
last sentence you are describing a policy enforcement mechanism based upon a
precise (or im-precise, or subjective) definition of a 'class' of messages.
-e
On Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:04 AM, Jon Kyme
[SMTP:jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com] wrote:
I do not think 'consent' really has anything to do with a definition of
'spam'
in the context of this problem. I feel that consent with respect to
messaging
is TOTALLY subjective and what a real definition addresses is the issue
of
policy or 'consent' enforcement after solicitation. I think enforcement
comes
via the technical solution we come up with.
OK, consent is subjective. Definition of spam is subjective.
These are not blockers.
Classification of a message is not impossible.
(There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of
"accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us.
We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that
"this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery to
this subject."
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg