Re: [Asrg] define spam

[Kee Hinckley <nazgul@somewhere.com>]

At 7:38 AM -0800 3/29/03, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Jon,
>
>
> JK> Well (referring to the charter) how about:
> JK> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended
> JK> recipient.
>
> I hear that you are the world's expert on ice cream.  I want to hire you
> to help my ice cream manufacturing business.  We have never met.  I send
> you an email.
>
> The above definition classifies my email as spam.
Where did you get my email address?  Did you also send that message 
to one thousand other experts on ice cream?

Unfortunately consent is even harder to define than spam.  Very much 
dependent on context and implicit assumptions.

We started down the "let's define spam" path on this list a week or 
so ago and then gave up.  I think that was wise.

How about another approach.  Define what the problem with spam 
is--and then instead of focusing on defining the specifics of spam, 
focus on solutions to the problems that spam (and possibly other 
email) causes.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg