These discussions (which mostly I've seen in NANAE) drive me
nuts. I get
spam in my account, I know its spam. More to the point I
trap relay spam
to thousands of people using a honeypot. I don't need any
definition to
check on that: it's spam. I'd be certifiably nuts if I
fretted over what I
trapped being spam or not.
Clearly everything that is received by a honey pot is almost
certain to be indiscriminate. there is a small chance that
a message could get in one honeypot through accidental
mistyping of a name. it is almost certain that any message that
shows up in multiple honeypots is spam.
There are a few, a very few cases where a mail sent to a honeypot
could be wanted by someone else. The only case that I think is
likely to be widespread is rare public service announcements which
is something that can only be dealt with through a whitelisting
approach in any case.
I don't like the idea of defining spam in a way that seems to
approach 'spam is what our filters say is spam'.
There's a reason for everyone to use honeypots right there:
you can forget
worrying about the definition of spam. If you trap it then it's
spam. Boom. end of discussion.* If you don't somebody else
is dealing
with whether or not it meets the criteria, whatever "it" is.
Some spam might not show up in honeypots though. For example
the spam that spamarrest sent to all the people who sent email
to its users.
Spam = Unwanted and indiscriminate messages
Works fine here.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg