Rich Kulawiec wrote:
For example, why is it not in the scope of that document "to attempt to
distinguish or justify any more detailed definition of [the term spam]"?
The canonical definition of spam (in the context of email) was settled
on a very long time ago ("unsolicited bulk email") and is NOT in need of
tinkering or refinement. It's served us very well -- and one reason
why is that it's *deliberately* silent on a number of points. It would
be a very serious mistake -- one that would greatly assist spammers --
to change that situation.
UBE is still better than "the class of Messages which the Recipient
wishes to prevent from ever being presented with." In particular, it
allows to determine a message's spaminess *on sending*.
However, expanding on that definition may be useful for a number of
purposes. I mention two:
1. Many countries now have laws that address privacy, and it would be
informative for postmasters, managers, and lawyers to know what each
one's neighbor is talking about.
2. We don't fight spam as a uniform diffused phenomenon, and some
tools are better than others in specific areas. For example,
discerning direct marketing from zombies is just practical. How would
that assist which kind of spammer?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg