On Apr 02 2006, Seth Breidbart wrote:
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.
Correct. The formal test must specify the adjudicator. It doesn't
matter what the cause of the spam is (ie a benign typo here), only the
measurable result. If you're the adjudicator, then it's spam. If
sethbr is the adjudicator, then it's not spam. If you both are, then
the formal test must specify how to deal with ties. If the law is the
test then there are two deliveries, and one of them increments the
spam count.
We can always argue about testing criteria, but as long as they are
clearly spelled out to the experts, there is value in such tests.
--
Laird Breyer.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg