-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> ... The problem was not that we cannot define spam, the
> problem is that we were attempting a binary definition
> rather than providing a taxonomy ...
Definitions are going nowhere.
I would welcome a gazzetteer of things which constitute
"e-mail abuse"; but calling it a taxonomy and attempting to
structure classes of abuse just encourages drilling for
loopholes, particularly if its ulterior motive is to
explain DKIM to the masses.
The list would unfortunately have to include comments such
as:
"The practice of sending a message of wide distribution to
an address where it was not explicitly asked for, where that
message includes an undertaking to send no further messages
unless they are explicitly asked for, is an abuse of e-mail.
Note that the direct marketing industry disagrees with the
inclusion of this activity in this list [reference]."
"The practice of returning service notifications to the
apparent originator address of a message where it has not
been established that that address belongs to the real
originator is an abuse of e-mail.
Note that some e-mail operators believe the practice is
acceptable for some types of notification but not for
others."
You can't fix the mismatch of business and cultural models
or assumptions which (as later messages said) are at the
bottom of this mess; so documenting it is the natural thing
to try next. Who knows, putting all the information in one
place might start a chain reaction vigorous enough to
generate light as well as heat.
Rodney Tillotson, JANET-CERT
+44 1235 822 255
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFExy0TzHL8ns8C6+kRAtY+AKDvPXi2AChEx7qAF6WeSnkrtw5mVgCeNlSJ
pU63hsseYj1KEMnJuH6KQRg=
=czp9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg