At 9:43 +0100 4/4/03, Jon Kyme wrote:
Can someone remind me what the point of "defining spam" is ?
The point of defining a new word is to allow well understood concepts
to be packed into a more convenient form. For example, if I say to
"chiffonade those greens," any chef would know exactly what to do and
I would not have to describe the technique. This is efficient.
The problem is that a perception of "spam" cannot be defined globally
as each person sees it a bit differently. I can only assume that the
intent of ever more work to cause all to accept a definition is to
keep this word alive and a part of sober discussions of a
technological and social problem.
Definitions that attempt to make a local determination ("this message
is 'a spam'") based on global information ("Spam is an email sent...
to say more than 500 addresses... not expected by the recipients")
are not workable since magical global knowledge is required.
I have been working on this problem since maybe 1997. Never has there
been agreement on a strict definition for the word.
I suggest, but nobody will listen:
"Spam" - a generic term for a problem in electronic mail whereby
people are receiving messages that they don't want to receive, and
can't stop. The "spam problem" is very simply about the right to be
left alone.
"(fill in precise language here)" - suitable plain language for a
particular type of sender, message, measurement or other thing
related to the spam problem... one example would be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail from strangers" which can be packed into 'UCE' when
appropriate. "Spammer" is appropriate when referring to a generic
class. "Stock scammer" would be more specific.
cheers
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg