J.D. Falk wrote:
However, I think an it could, and should, go beyond that. 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]"?
Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure that
a document is never finished.
Finishing a document, by itself, is not a progress in the anti-spam
endeavor, unless it contains useful knowledge for countering spam. I
suspect that if we are not even able to agree on a definition of spam,
there will never be much efficient anti-spam research by our group.
And if people were to judge such research by the spam levels out
there, they'd conclude it's all hot air.
Could we start again, please?
Let me try the following variation on UBE, in order to see if we can
classify the objections against adopting it as a working definition.
*Spam* is a message or a class of messages composed automatically,
possibly using templates and databases of names or words, using a
list of destination mailbox addresses, and failing to meet both the
following conditions:
* There is a record or evidence whatsoever, even implied, that the
recipient has registered, subscribed, or otherwise solicited the
message; and
* it is obvious from the message content, including the headers,
who is in charge of controlling the processing, and how the
recipients can amend or delete their addresses from the list (as
well as any other part of their personally identifiable data from
any database used to compose the message), where "obvious" means
the relevant entity is indicated, exists, is normally reachable by
the recipient, and is effectual to the purpose it is referred for.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg