From: "Scott Nelson" <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
At 12:01 PM 7/20/03 -0700, Mark Ferguson wrote:
...>
>I attempted to actually give a real world definition to spam a while
>back and it was met with both negative and positive reviews.
>
This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms to express
consent.
Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic
for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic.
Perhaps, by this logic, even defining consent constitutes a once removed
definition of spam.
A possible solution, then, is to ignore all definitions because there may be
some qualities that are not possible to implement.
Instead perhaps we should focus on what is possible, then build systems
using those known things in much the way that a complex program is built
from basic libraries.
This would mean that definitions of consent, spam, and anything else would
be tied to the implementation, and would vary from system to system.
Definitions need never be mentioned.
Perhaps expanding and refining a list of the possible would help us to
create a comprehensive set of tools to aid in the creation of a complete
system.
John Fenley
www.Choicelist.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg