From: "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
...
there is only one thing that calling this "spam" achieves -- it reduces the
impact of the term "spam". when a word means all things, it means nothing.
let's keep the powder dry for "real" spam, shall we?
What is real spam? How can I tell when I receive it?
Should I fire on offers for printing cheap supplies? Since I have a
couple of printers, supplies would do me more good than a listing in
an RFC directory. What about Internet Stock Surveys?
SERIOUS ONLINE INCOME? Free porn NO CREDIT CARD NEEDED?
(recent topics in this list)
My definition is evidently wrong. It was "bulk" that I didn't expressly
and explicitly ask for, regardless of motive, content, source, or
other justification. What is the right definition? Because I don't
trust my (or your) ability to judge content, motive, or justification,
I'd prefer a definition that is as close to mechanically implementable
as possible. My old definition allowed a purely mechanical filter
with essentially 0% false positives and low false negatives. Anything
"bulk" because it has been seen by a bunch of other people and not in
my white list was rejected. What should I do instead?
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
P.S. If I were inclined to complain about non-bulk wastes of bits,
I'd mention responding to a message with a complete copy of the original
and then sending two copies to some lucky people.
P.P.S. Then there were the recent messages from the RFC author Who's Who
organization containing both quoted-printable ASCII and HTML.