FWIW: I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it
is based on context.
Here's a try at some way of stating it:
A message is SPAM when the recipients have no interest in reciving the
message
and have not requested or authorized the sender to transmit such messages to
them.
Keys:
A) did not ask for it.
B) do not want it.
C) has no "Value" to recipients.
D) sender generaly not known to recipients.
HTH
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:43 PM
To: esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document
On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:21, you (ESR) wrote:
Marc A. Pelletier <marc(_at_)ctrl-alt-del(_dot_)ca>:
"A sender is /not/ spamming if he sends a message with
the justified
expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to
perceive the message as spam."
Interesting idea, but that double negaive is confusing and
has to go.
Grammatically, yes, but I'd be loathe to reverse the sense of
the statement.
If we were trying to draft a legal document (which I realise
we're not) this would be an 'active defense'; we're not
saying what spam is, but we're allowing one way to determine
what isn't.
"A sender is spamming if he sends a message without the
justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are
not going to perceive the message as spam."
How is that? English is not my native language, so while I
still perceive two negations it might still be grammatically
sounder (and clearer)?
I'm a bit worried, though, because I think that also changes
the meaning in a sublte and undesirable way; am I the only
one to read that version as defining a restrictive metric for
spam rather than defining a "this is not spam and here's why" defense?
Though if this is acceptable, it allows us to clean up the
statement and take the sender out entierly:
"A message is spam if it was sent without the justified
expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going
to perceive it as spam."
Stiill two negatives in there, though. The problem is that
"[...] was sent with the justified expectation [...] are
going to perceive it as spam."
doesn't mean the same thing at all even though the two
negatives are reversed.
You are a considerably better wordcraft in english than I, so
I appreciate your input on this.
-- Marc A. Pelletier
_______________________________________________
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