ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

4.d. mapping personal definitions of spam to the consent framewor k (was RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through)

2003-07-21 06:44:48

You're right.

Additionally, let's nip this topic in the bud before it goes any further.

Below is a copy of a message that I sent to the list about a month ago. It
seems that every month or so, the 'definition of spam' conversation comes
up. Therefore, it is worthwhile to revisit the view of how these personal
definitions of spam are encompassed by the consent framework.

A useful conversation at this point is how do we need to further define the
consent framework to achieve this goal. The current draft that has been put
forth can be found at:
http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html



-- begin original message from
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05307.html
--
This topic has been debated on this mailing list at least three times. Each
time the debate goes on for days. After a while, we reach consensus but have
gained no ground.

Please read this carefully from the charter: 

"The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted
email messages,"

"The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across
different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem
into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or
organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for
certain communication and have the architecture support those desires."

We could debate the meaning of spam forever. The point here is to generalize
to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of
consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam'
to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the
definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced.
Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a
certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on
detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email.
A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and
sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a
consent-based communication system.

As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted
messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and
characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of
the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state
the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the
robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse
these assumptions.
-end original message-

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Angus [mailto:danny(_at_)apache(_dot_)org] 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:16 AM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through



This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms 
to express 
consent.

Well, not if you read the website:
"The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and 
collectively propose and evaluate solutions to the problem."

Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic for 
this group, it's /expressly/ off topic.

I agree that this has been decided, however I'd also draw 
your attention to the website where it also says:

"The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem 
of unwanted email messages, loosely referred to as spam"

From which we must assume that this group exists to research 
the _whole_ of the problem not only from the POV of what is 
practically possible, but also from the POV of identifying 
what is and isn't within the scope of the problem.

The problem I keep seeing here is that there are many facets 
to this broad definition, and individual participants 
generally have particular needs that reflect only a few of 
these, so that the situation arises where well meaning people 
attempt to steer the whole of the discussion into a single 
channel of thought.

I don't believe it is necessary or productive to define spam 
more closely than the mission statement, nor to attempt to 
find a single silver bullet for what is in fact only a 
collection of loosely related problems.

d.


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


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



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • 4.d. mapping personal definitions of spam to the consent framewor k (was RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through), Paul Judge <=