From: Rodney Tillotson
[mailto:R(_dot_)Tillotson(_at_)ukerna(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
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.
Taxonomy might not be the right term, it implies the sets are disjoint and
there is a lot of overlap.
The point is that DKIM and CANSPAM do not 'solve' the problem of spam, they
help to address certain specific types of spam which currently make up the vast
majority of the problem.
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]."
Spam is an irregular verb: I send email, you abuse email, he spams.
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.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg