ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2

2003-06-05 18:41:58
Vernon,

as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of
unsolicited and bulk that make it spam.  Remove either qualifier and it
is something else.

VS> Oh, that's not what I understood you to write.

Just for reference, this was the note with the example I was citing:

     
<https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05183.html>
     


VS> Why must the dividing line by a single fixed number for us humans?

We want to build software to prevent, detect or dispose of spam.
Software does not know about "reasonable" definitions of "bulk".  What
is the algorithm we should feed the software?

For these discussions, I am not in the least concerned with legal
aspects of enforcement or rule-making.  I want software algorithms.


VS> Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but let people
VS> installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds appropriate for local
VS> conditions or other constraints?

This is one of those questions that needs to get two different answers:

1.  We must, of course, let individual users have control over
parameters.

2.  Individuals will get these parameters wrong, especially if they are
FORCED to set them.  It is one thing to have common agreement of
commonly-acceptable parameters, and then permit "tuning" by inidividual
users.  It is another to have no consistent construct (threshholds)
anywhere in the system.

3. (Bonus answer, beyond the promised 2) The enforcement is often by an
intermediary and I guarantee that they will set the parameters
differently than the recipient wants.  This is the really major reason
to do interoperability standards, rather than just letting everybody set
the details themselves.


VS> Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining offenses.

I thought this was a technical discussion list, so I was -- perhaps
foolishly -- thinking that we wanted to vector definitions to a place
that permitted implementation by software, rather than courts.


VS> Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a
VS> serious mistake.  As you and others have often said, we cannot hope
VS> to eliminate all spam.  An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope
VS> for our computers to detect all spam.

Frankly, I am hoping that we simply get away from the term.  No, I do
not think we can agree on a universal, all-encompassing definition for
spam and, no, I do not think we can prevent or detect all spam.

That's why I am in the group that believes we should settle on a
definition of something that we CAN operationalizem, for which improved
control will mean improved Internet usability.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg