From: Dave Crocker <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
We need to be careful that we do not confuse some properties of transport
with the properties of recipient impact.
Whether a copy of a message is sent with related copies -- as happens with
the data compression technique that uses a single copy of the body and a
list of recipient addresses -- or whether the related copies are sent
individually, the effect on the recipient is the same.
I agree. The DCC counts only recepients.
Whether the body is identical or whether it conforms to a template is,
again, a minor technical point that is totally irrelevant to the salient
denial of service effect that motivates objections to spam.
An ISP might care about this difference in packaging. A recipient does not.
ps. The use of the term "substantially different" might be a fulcrum for
debate, but let me suggest we avoid it. Rather than dealing with the major
issues we would end up debating minor semantics.
I don't understand those three paragraphs. I assume that "conforms
to a template" has the same meaning as the standard term "substantially
identical." The second term is standard in the netnews and email
anti-spam communities. The DCC doesn't care about "packaging."
For example, DCC clients strip base64 and quoted-printable encodings
before computing even the non-fuzzy "body" checksum.
If you require the SMTP body after the headers to be byte-for-byte
identical to call it "bulk," then there is no bulk mail. What spam
does not contain random strings of "hash busters" or opt-out URLs or
other "personizations?" However, even the spammers accept the canonical
Reasonable Person definition of "substantially identical."
Trying to decide whether a given message that is nominally a statement
about public policy (i.e. politics), a joke, a weather forecast, or
an effort to save your soul is "commercial," "soliciting," or
"promotional" is an bottomless quagmire of semantic hairsplitting.
The notes on U.S. public radio and TV that in the last 15 years have
evolved from acknowledgements of contributors to "image advertising"
and "public service announcements" and finally to full-out ads are a
demonstration of that mess. Judges and juries can sometimes figure
that stuff out, but before computer programs will be able to, they'll
be able to act like a human secretary to filter your mail.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com