Alow me to second that sentiment. It's not very useful to talk about
dealing with spam since the definitions people use range from
"multiple substantially similar items of unsolicited commercial e-mail
sent to more than N people in less than M time" to "any mail I don't
want" and everyone knows that his definition is right and all the rest
miss the point.
You forget, "anything my spam control mechanism identifies as spam is
spam". One of the reasons this debate gets heated is that there are
folk wanting to move the goalposts.
Any anti-spam technical proposal should start by saying as
specifically as possible what abuse it's intended to prevent or
combat. The various LMAP proposals, for example, appear to me to be
intended to detect forged domains in e-mail return addresses.
I think we need two definitions:
1) The problem the *users* want us to solve
2) The problem our solution addresses.
For me the utility in having the first definition, requirements driven is
that some spam control mechanisms transfers spam rather than eliminate it.
For example C/R mechanisms reduce the spam for the user but increase my
spam if I send email to someone using them.
I believe the problem the users want us to solve is to eliminate unwanted
and indiscriminate email.
I don't think we can include bulk in the definition, I have no idea how
many people get the penis enlargement spam. It is just as much of a
nuisance as far as I am concerned if I am the only recipient. I have the
same problem with allowing 'unsolicited' into the definition. I have no
idea how to define unsolicited in a way some toe rag MBA will not figure
out how to abuse. But I can say that the fact that sender had to hide the
opt-out option from the user means that the sender knew that the recipients
were unlikely to want the messages.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg