Re: [Asrg] definition of spam (was Re: consent expression)

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:00:08 -0800
Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 08:59:16PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > To a recipient, spam is mail he finds annoying, doesn't want to receive,
> > and
> > 
> > To an ISP, spam is what violates its AUP.  Alternately, it's what
> > customers To a sender, spam is whatever someone else is doing.  No spammer
> > sees himself
> 
> 
> The purpose of a definition of spam is to use legal tactics against
> it, typically in contract law, but also possibly in statute.

I don't think it's necessary, or particularly useful, for us to try to nail
down "the" definition of spam in objective terms.

I agree (for the reasons you cited, and probably others) that the definition
of spam used in anti-spam laws needs to be different than a recipient's
definition of spam.  The kind of spam that a recipient wants to block, or that
an ISP might want to forbid, might not match the definition of spam in
anti-spam laws.  And it might be useful for a recipient to be able to block
things that don't match the legal definition, and for ISPs to be able to
filter such traffic based on a recipient's instrctions.  If nothing else, such
laws and their definitions of spam will vary from one jurisdiction to
another.

> However, for a system to be implemented by the IETF or similar body,
> a much narrower concensus is required, as this will be the default
> for much of the E-mail system of the world.

I doubt that it's appropriate for IETF to try to standardize means of blocking
or filtering only what IETF thinks is spam, and I didn't read this IRTF
group's charter as suggesting that kind of approach.  

Keith
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg