Mark Ferguson wrote:
The primary issue in all definitions of spam is whether
or not it is solicited.
Not *all* definitions. Only the ones that are
unnecessarily broad and thus not useful in the process of
defining anti-spam mechanisms. I often receive
unsolicited "solicitations" via email that I am very, very
happy to receive. These include emails from old school
friends, potential business partners, etc. These are
solicitations that I *want* to receive but haven't explicitly
solicited. These are also solicitations sent by people who
have a real and sincere belief that I will, in fact, wish to
read their mail. The thing that most distinguishes spam for
me is the fact that the sender of the spam is aware that only
a tiny portion of the receivers will, in fact, be pleased to
receive the mail. It is this decision to inconvenience
massive numbers of people for personal gain that makes it
such a repulsive action.
If being "solicited" was the only measure of whether
something is spam then the "solution" to spam would simply be
to implement absolute whitelists. Then, only "solicited" or
approved senders could send mail. All unsolicited mail would
get trashed -- and, you'd never discover that "Kathy" who you
had a crush on in high school is desperately trying
to "solicit" you to join her for a coffee and catch up on old
times and... The mere fact that whitelists alone do not
appear to be the solution to spam should be a clear
indication that the definition of spam is more subtle and
nuanced than you suggest.
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg