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

[Dave Aronson <dja2003@hotpop.com>]

Peter Deutsch <pdeutsch@earthlink.net> wrote:
 > Dave Aronson wrote:
 > > Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
 > >  > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote:
 > >  >  > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN
 > >  >  > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming.
 > >  >
 > >  > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk
 > >  > mailing" as spamming.
 > >  >
 > >  > I realize I won't get consensus on that here.
 > >
 > > At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means.  By the
 > > definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely
 > > automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send
 > > email at all, of course)), this very list is bulk.  So is every
 > > other.  So are any alerts anybody signs up for.  Where do YOU draw
 > > the line?
 >
 > But mailing lists are not unsolicited, there's an implied consent in
 > your act of subscription, non?

Right, but Barry was speaking of removing the issue of consent from the 
definition of spam, 'defining any "bulk mailing" as spamming.'  I'm 
trying to get a sense of whether he really means that.  The alternative 
is that he was just using hyperbole, and there is, after all, some sort 
of alternate line he would endorse, between legit bulk mail and spam.

-- 
David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info

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