RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...

["Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>]

> 
> I trust you are not supporting the parts of those definitions 
> that are from the equivelants of thieves trying to warp the 
> definition of burglary to give them permission to be be 
> anywhere and so always innocent.  Spammers and organizations 
> that would send a lot of spam if it did not have its current 
> stench define solicited as "until you do a confirmed opt-out, 
> and then only for a few months."
> 


No. I'm not supporting that. I probably used the wrong wording here. Let
me restate:

is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted?

Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says otherwise? 


> 
> There are big differences between capitalists who in 
> principle can understand enlightened self-interest and the 
> tragedy of the commons and parasites that claim a right to 
> steal from their sales targets.
> 

While that may be true, the fact is that Dell and Verisign have still
sent you email that you consider unsolicited. So I feel that my earlier
statement of capitalism + SMTP =  spam problem.

> Note that the Internet was in the hands of capitalists for 
> almost as many years before email spam became a problem as it 
> has been since spam became noticable.
> 
> 

Are you sure about that? When was commercial Internet use OK? When did
Canter & Siegel send the first spam?  Maybe you mean "spam became
unbearable" instead of "noticable".  1 spam = noticable. 100 =
unbearable.



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