Brad,
BT> Alas, now we see how hard it is to get consensus on this.
BT> Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some
BT> person commanded that mail be sent to more than
BT> a few hundred people
if 10,000 separate senders each mail to targeted lists of 50 people,
soliciting money, is that not spam?
BT> If the 10,000 people are, as you say, separate, and not caused to do so by
one
BT> entity, then no, it would not be under this definition.
I was trying to highlight a problem with the definition.
The person that receives each of those 10,000 messages is going to be
pretty clear that they have received spam.
BT> Have we seen a lot of this happening? I think it is vital in this issue
BT> not to solve hypotheticals that are not actually taking place,
I concur entirely. It is essential to ask that question for every
scenario people put forward.
As to the particulars, here, there are two concerns:
1. Spam is two different problems. One is traffic for ISPs and the
other is traffic for recipients. Neither really cares how many places
that traffic comes from. Hence, making the definition rely on single,
major offenders carries a serious risk, if there are many, small
offenders.
2. Targeted marketing is becoming much, much easier. Hence, many small
offenders is becoming essentially trivial.
I do not know whether they are yet a major source of the problem. As
soon as we make mechanisms that successfully limit single-source
volumes, we will get this alternative traffic. Spammers have proved to
be very, very adaptable.
BT> The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has
BT> had voluntary contact with the sender in the past
Anyone you have ever had contact with is thereby authorized to send you
a solicitation?
BT> Sure. Again, how much of your "spam" is coming from parties who are not
BT> strangers to you?
I am not a good person to ask, since my tolerance level for unsolicited
solicitations is close to zero.
My impression is that it is a common problem on the net.
BT> And in this case, how many problems have you had with
BT> getting removed from their lists?
Given that responding to a rogue spammer is a good way to validate that
your address is valid and that you are a responsive Internet email user,
the problem is knowing when it is "safe" to ask to be removed.
BT> If you have some numbers, let me know.
BT> My own experience is that UBE from parties known to me is rare, and for
those
BT> parties not to honour a remove request immediately is extremely rare.
Based on some involvement with a subscription (ie, opt-in) volume mail
startup, I'll note that one problem is that people forget what they have
signed up for.
This takes us back to the problem of knowing who it is "safe" to ask to
remove you.
BT> The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the
BT> recipient
Everyone gets one free shot at abusing (or, ummm, rather "stuffing")
your mailbox?
BT> Actually, under this definition, everybody _you_ talk to gets one "free
shot."
So, in Internet scale operation, that is up to 100 million extra pieces
of email. Or rather more, since "corporations" are independent of
individuals. And people form new corporations all the time.
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