spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "Do Not Spam" can work

2004-06-16 13:17:09
From: Lars Dybdahl
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:02 PM


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Onsdag den 16. juni 2004 19:01 skrev Seth Goodman:
I'm not sure I agree that it has to be subjective, since spam is
more about behavior than content.


<...>

SpamHaus has what I think is a
very good working definition.  To be spam, it must be both
unsolicited and bulk.

The basic thing is, that we disagree on the definition. There are many
definitions that work, but I still think that the best definitions
are:

- - Spam e-mails are those e-mails you don't want to receive.
- - Spam e-mails are defined by the receiver.

At our service, we have several customers who complain, that they
cannot receive "I want a bigger dick" and "Buy more viagra" e-mails.
They don't want spam, but they want those e-mails.

You are right, the definition of spam is something that reasonable people
will disagree on.  No doubt about it, that enlargement pill advertisement is
spam to one recipient, but to the guy right next to him, it is product of
the year (poor guy) :)

I should probably retract what I said and restate it as, "the definition of
spam that I prefer can be objective".  The definition of what your users
call spam is far more subjective, but it's no less valid.  That's the mail
that you have to try to block or filter.  This supports the notion that
different blacklists have different listing criteria, so people who run
mailers can select the ones that suit the preferences of their user base.


They also have a technical definition of spam that sounds like it
was drafted by a bunch of lawyers.  That one is pretty specific,
and my recollection is that the criteria were objective, though
incomprehensible to mere engineers :)

In other words, an unusable definition :-)

At least it will keep the lawyers employed :(

--

Seth Goodman