Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2003 18:58, Denny Figuerres wrote:
FWIW: I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it
is based on context.
And, indeed, that is one of the reasons I feel it is important to define it!
Part of the problem is that there are, and will be, "punitive" measures taken
against spammers. Anyone can take some random message and claim it is spam
then point an accusing finger at the sender. Conflict ensues.
In fact, detractors of many blacklists point to this as a major problem, and I
would tend to agree.
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.
I'm trying to define spam in a way that /specifically/ excludes the
recipient's opinion about a particular message. A) and D) I think most
everyone can agree on as minimal criterion for most sorts of spam, but B) and
C) are strictly subjective, and thus subject for abuse.
For instance, if I have a web site about show dog breeding and someone mails
me poodle breeding hints, the sender was justified in thinking I might not
see it spam regardless of whether I think poodles are horrible little
monsters or not. Arguably the same for a dog breeding supplies
advertisement.
That justification would doubtless vanish if it's penile enlagement herbal
supplements. So we're not talking about independence from contents, but
about how I was chosen as a recipient.
In fact, if my address had been chosen (on purpose) from a website where I
decry my despair at being unable to purchase all-natural herbal alternatives
to viagra, the sender *would* be justified in sending me what we would all
normally agree is spam on that topic.
-----Original Message-----
Please Oh Please Oh Please don't top-post!
-- Marc A. Pelletier
Historically all discussions on the definition of spam in the group have
not come to a fruitful conclusion. According to the technical
considerations document, the term "unsolicited bulk email" is used as a
working definition. See the following:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt
http://www.opengroup.org/messaging/public/oct-2003/spam/shafranovich.pdf
(sections 2.1-2.3)
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg