Fridrik Skulason <frisk(_at_)f-prot(_dot_)com> wrote:
My own definition of "spam"
is a concept that makes spam-fighting worthless and undefinable.
Consider that spammers all define spam as what they don't do. There
is one agreed definition (in the email area): Unsolicited Bulk Email.
is pretty broad, not just UCE, but pretty much
any unwanted crap in my mailbox.
If the bully who picked on you in fifth grade found your email address
and started picking on you in email, that would be unwanted crap, but
it wouldn't be spam. On the other hand, "Jesus Is Coming Soon (Look
Busy!)" sent to 50 million email addresses isn't commercial, but is
spam.
In particular that includes worms as well as worm-generated bounces
and other mail directly or indirectly created as a result of
computer worm activity.
Unsolicited, surely. Bulk, unless it's an individual worm (in which
case it isn't a worm), yes. Email, yes. Hence spam; no need for a
private definition.
I have said before that universal adoption of SPF would kill off the
current generation of worms (and that includes Sober.J)
1. "universal adoption" is part of being a FUSSP.
2. The next generation would just be more careful about who they
claimed to be.
* Some of the domains that send us those bounces have published SPF
records, which indicates they are aware of SPF, but for one reason
or another they have decided not to implement SPF checking, so
they continue to cause problems for everyone else with those
bounces.
At this point, strong SPF checking breaks too much stuff (especially
forwarding).
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg