Re: [Asrg] define spam

["Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org>]

Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> wrote;
> I had always thought the best solution was to take all the major definitions,
> and then take the _intersection_ of those definitions.  Then look at that
> intersection and say, "how much of the problem does this cover?"  And more
> to the point, "Does this cover enough of it to take back our mailboxes?"

  It's a good start.

> Remarkably, some people fight a lesser definition than what they prefer, even
> if they will agree that the spams not in that definition are well under 1%
> of the total.   They feel it is particularly important to get every last one.
> I'm not sure why, I don't see an engineering goal.

  It allows people to believe they're still working against the
problem, while not having to actually do anything involving real
"work".

  "Every journey begins with a single step."

> 		    Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition,
> 			but usually only if not including the mass mailing
> 			component, so this might not stay)

  Only crazy people spend money to send out thousands of messagesm and
don't expect a monetary return.  They're usually fairly easy to track
down, because of this.  They're also a tiny part of the spam problem.
Witness the crazies on Usenet, years before Cantor & Siegel.  The
problems they caused were annoying, but they didn't cause the furor
resulting from the first "spam" message.

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