Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure
that a document is never finished.
Why not take the opposite approach? Any relevant antispam technique must
at least significantly affect some UBE, or else it is probably useless.
Also, any approach that relevantly affects UBE can be considered
antispam. So, instead of trying to define spam, the document can simply
state that the proposal must at least relevantly affect UBE, while it
can affect other categories of spam.
--
Claudio Telmon
claudio(_at_)telmon(_dot_)org
http://www.telmon.org
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg