--On 26 June 2009 10:42:55 -0400 Seth <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ian Eiloart <iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
--On 26 June 2009 10:11:49 -0400 Seth <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ian Eiloart <iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Frankly, I don't like that definition. Specifically it misses an
important class of spam - well targeted, individualised, unsolicited
marketing messages which are necessarily unique (and hence not
bulk).
What makes them unique? If the individualisation is merely a mail
merge, they're still bulk. If the salescritter spent an hour
investigating me in order to determine that I'm a good prospect and
figure out the best way to entice me, the problem scales just fine.
And how would I, as a recipient, know which had happened? How would
I know whether to report the message as spam?
If it isn't apparent from the message itself, you probably shouldn't
be on the net without adult supervision.
Really, SMTP has some feature that lets me determine -from the content of
an email- exactly how that email was constructed and who spent what amount
of time putting it together? Neat. Is that in RFC 2821 of 2822. Must be
2822, since you said "from the message itself".
Well, there's our solution then. We just need to examine the content of the
X-i-struggled-for-half-an-hour-to-discover-whether-you'd-be-likely-to-be-interested-in-this-offer
header.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg