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.
I don't believe that a definition of spam (other than the one negated in
the neat generalisation in the charter) will be agreed on by the group. Any
effort expended on a wild goose chase pursuing this red herring up a blind
alley will be wasted.
"No thanks, we've got one."
For the purposes of this group "spam" is "non-consent-based communication".
Some forms of NCBC (ha!) will be less objectionable than others - if we
need to define sub-categories
(UCE, UBE etc) let's do that.
Perhaps we need a agreed nomenclature - fine - suggestions?
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg