On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM, J.D.
Falk<jdfalk-lists(_at_)cybernothing(_dot_)org> wrote:
Alessandro Vesely 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.
In fact trying to define spam would ensure it never got started!
Actually I would have liked to have included *some* definition, but
because members of this group hold pretty entrenched opinions covering
most possible definitions I felt that on the one hand it would be
impossible and on the other hand it would be unecessary.
I believe that it is unnecessary for two reasons, the first being that
this group cannot agree a definition, yet operates reasonably
successfully, and secondly there can be an empirical test for a
solution, even if there is no agreed definition of spam itself.
d.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg