I trust you are not supporting the parts of those definitions
that are from the equivelants of thieves trying to warp the
definition of burglary to give them permission to be be
anywhere and so always innocent. Spammers and organizations
that would send a lot of spam if it did not have its current
stench define solicited as "until you do a confirmed opt-out,
and then only for a few months."
No. I'm not supporting that. I probably used the wrong wording here. Let
me restate:
is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted?
Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says otherwise?
There are big differences between capitalists who in
principle can understand enlightened self-interest and the
tragedy of the commons and parasites that claim a right to
steal from their sales targets.
While that may be true, the fact is that Dell and Verisign have still
sent you email that you consider unsolicited. So I feel that my earlier
statement of capitalism + SMTP = spam problem.
Note that the Internet was in the hands of capitalists for
almost as many years before email spam became a problem as it
has been since spam became noticable.
Are you sure about that? When was commercial Internet use OK? When did
Canter & Siegel send the first spam? Maybe you mean "spam became
unbearable" instead of "noticable". 1 spam = noticable. 100 =
unbearable.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg