"For most working discussions, the term "Unsolicited Bulk Email" is
sufficient."
Sorry Yakov I must disagree
taken from...
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt
Called spam, its definition varies from
"unsolicited commercial email" to "any email the
recipient does not want".
My point is, and I keep having to repeat this.
"One man spams is another mans fodder"
If any in this group thinks they can define spam then I am afraid they are
mistaken
other than to say it is indefinable which is *exactly* what the document
states
We cannot and should not be looking for ways to force any persons (or
groups) definition of spam onto any one else
We should be looking for ways to empower the recipient to decide for
themselves (or parents) what to receive and what not to receive.
It is not the job of the transport system to do this. and NEVER should be.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: yshafranovich02(_at_)sprintpcs(_dot_)com
[mailto:yshafranovich02(_at_)sprintpcs(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Yakov
Shafranovich
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:52 AM
To: Chris
Cc: Alan DeKok; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)
Chris wrote:
Have I missed something?
Reasons. As in, none given for pull systems, other than "we think
they'll work". They will work, of course, but whether or not they'll
stop spam is another question.
Please define spam
From the technical considerations document
):
We do not have an official definition, but this one is sufficient for
most discussions.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my
tongue." (MIT's 404 Message)
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg