All;
There is a simple reason for trying to 'define spam' in the context of this
group. It is not related to anything to be construed as a 'globally'
acceptable definition per se. It is merely intended to be a tool for,
ostensibly, our use in evaluation of the proposals. IMHO, we should focus on
such a solution for a definition. It will not be worthwhile, I think, to
continue in debate on a less precise definition. In some cases the definition
describes the 'scope' of a problem and uses that to develop a solution
(reduction of impact, scope, etc.), in others a precise term has been used to
identify a problem and formulate a solution to eradicate the defined object.
In this case we should try to define 'it' in one of those two ways so that the
effect of a proposed solution can be measured objectively by the group for
research purposes, and tested in interoperable implementations developed
(nominally) outside of the group (in the IETF) [RFC2014, BCP8].
On Friday, April 04, 2003 10:05 AM, Brad Spencer
[SMTP:brad(_dot_)madison(_at_)mail(_dot_)tds(_dot_)net] wrote:
At 08:54 AM 4/4/2003 -0500, Jim Youll wrote:
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.
I agree that this is the effect of 'it'.
8<...>8 Why is it necessary to have the definition be completely
precise? I repeat that the ASRG goal isn't the drafting of the definitive
anti-spam law with the definitive anti-spam definition. More properly time
could be spent on sub-definitions: if you stop email on the basis of a
sub-definition then you stop spam. My sub-definition is any non-test
message that is trapped in my relay spam honeypot. Another sub-definition
is "whatever email originates in Ronnie Scelson's IP space is spam." Who
has shown an overriding need for a full definition?
I agree, I do not think we should or are attempting to come up with a single
layer definition, so the sub-definition idea works for me. Again, it is merely
a portion of the definition that is more precise or definitive for the problem
being experienced. This does not mean, as you rightly point out by using the
modifier 'sub', multiple definitions - but I think we can come up with a
taxonomy for 'it' that will accommodate those 'sub' categories. The full
definition is the appropriate taxonomy IMHO.
If this were an emergency group set up to fight a fire that was threatening
the entire East cost of the USA little time would be spent on defining
fire. The stakes aren't as high but the situation is similar: a massive
problem exists that needs action taken to deal with that massive problem.
The only problem I perceive with that logic is that we are dealing with how for
the most part technological solutions will deal with the problem. In the case
of fire, if you were using a robotic fire engineer, you would indeed have to
'define fire' for the machine, but not the people who are being burnt. I think
that would be a more appropriate way to consider this definition thing.
8<...>8
Regard,
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg