Re: principles / first do no damage (Re: [Asrg] definition of spam)

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

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:43:42 +0000
Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

> To avoid the trend of people only airing negative opinions, let me say
> that I think Brad's narrow content-neutral unsolicited high volume
> definition to be spot-on.  We really must avoid solutions which reduce
> functionality, reliability and freedoms of email.

I don't agree with the spam definition, but am very much in agreement
with the "do no damage" principle.

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