Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver"
I don't think so...
It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we
should just accept definitions that don't make sense. There is, I
believe, a class of "unwanted" messages that the average person would
not consider to be "spam."
For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be
unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam.
Similarly, a message from your mother which might have been rejected by
your spam filters because it was formatted in HTML (she doesn't know any
other way to send it...) wouldn't really be considered "spam" by the
average person.
It would be convenient if we had a nice, tight, broadly accepted
definition of spam. However, I think we need to give up on even trying
to get there. Since we've pretty much proved that just about any
definition of spam is going to result in endless debate about its
correctness, let's just stop trying to define it and focus our energy on
solving the problem.
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg