Seth wrote:
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*.
Definitionally, yes. Effectively, no. There's no way for anyone
other than the sender (e.g. the sender's ISP) to determine that I
asked someone I met at a party last week to send me some information
by email. (Sure, they could ask me; but I _didn't_ solicit that.)
Likewise, a recipient's ESP has no way to determine what the recipient
_wishes_. Even asking may result in ambiguous answers, possibly
affected by unexpected unconscious evocations. In addition, to surmise
that a recipient's wishes can be partitioned into classes according to
some standard is beyond any residual trace of objectivity. When
interpreted operatively, it calls for inconsistent behavior -which
indeed is what we currently have.
Even if we may be skeptical about the effectiveness of meatspace laws
for limiting spam, we should give them credit for defining and
describing a number of useful terms. Privacy laws are aimed at
protecting people against undiscriminated usage of collected
personally identifiable information, a.k.a. personal data. For
example, European privacy directives' definitions[1] don't use the
term "spam", but pin unauthorized usage of email addresses.
Technically, UBE is covered in section 6.2 of rfc5321, loosening up on
delivering or bouncing. According to privacy criteria, it should be
covered in section 3.9, which is where the lists of addresses come
into play. Is that the difference between coping and fixing?
[1] http://www.cdt.org/privacy/eudirective/EU_Directive_.html#HD_NM_28
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg