Laird Breyer <laird(_at_)lbreyer(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Apr 01 2006, Chris Lewis wrote:
_Anything_ that uses "adjudicators" to determine whether an email is
spam or ham is clearly missing an important clue: spam isn't about
content, it's about _consent_. It is a behaviour (sending without
consent), NOT what is in the email.
It still needs a human adjudicator. In this case, a human who
interprets the CAN-SPAM regulations and decides whether (the legal
definition of) consent did apply.
If the adjudicator comes in after the fact, it is _impossible_ to
tell.
Example: sethbr(_at_)panix(_dot_)com subscribed to a non-confirming newsletter,
and typoed the email address. When he noticed he wasn't getting it,
he subscribed again, typing the address correctly this time.
Panix gets two copies. One to me, one to him.
One of them is spam.
Unless you get Dave Hayes to write the adjudicator, it won't always be
right.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg