At 6:42 PM -0700 4/10/03, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Can you define a solution for spam without a definition of spam?
What is the problem we're supposed to solve?
That is actually something I said I was going to try and do a few
weeks ago, and never did. I may try and make another pass at it this
weekend if I can avoid getting tempted to respond to messages on this
list.
I believe that it is possible to describe the *problems* that we are
trying to solve without discussing spam or consent. There are
slightly different sets of problems for ISPs vs. end-users. And for
personal accounts vs. business. And a number of these problems (e.g.
massive numbers of bounces) are not solely caused by spam. Given a
description of the problems, then it should be possible to look at
proposed solutions and determine which part of the space they solve
and which they don't. That would (in theory) bypass the whole issue
of definitions and consent. Particular *solutions* certainly may
require defining consent. But I don't believe that describing the
problem space requires it.
Yell at me Monday if I haven't written something up.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg