At 04:42 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote:
Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> the bottom line is that any message that a human
> receiver does not want - does not consent to, is
> considering spam according to that person.
I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions
between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes
from discussion what may be useful information.
It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is
spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist
position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design.
If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of
"spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have
just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus,
your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology.
i.e. "Spam is Spam".
Well, I guess the bottom line is that we all agree that we disagree -
everyone's definition of spam is different. But for the purposes of the
consent framework do we even need to define spam? Or should we just provide
the mechanisms and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user
and ISP decide on their definitions?
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg