RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document

["Denny Figuerres" <denny@figuerres.com>]

 FWIW:  I think trying to "define spam" is a bit of a futile exersize as it
is based on context.
Here's a try at some way of stating it:

A message is SPAM when the recipients have no interest in reciving the
message 
and have not requested or authorized the sender to transmit such messages to
them.

Keys:  
A) did not ask for it.
B) do not want it.
C) has no "Value" to recipients.
D) sender generaly not known to recipients.

HTH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:43 PM
> To: esr@thyrsus.com
> Cc: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Proposed Changes for Document
> 
> On Sunday 16 November 2003 11:21, you (ESR) wrote:
> > Marc A. Pelletier <marc@ctrl-alt-del.ca>:
> > > "A sender is /not/ spamming if he sends a message with 
> the justified 
> > > expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going to 
> > > perceive the message as spam."
> >
> > Interesting idea, but that double negaive is confusing and 
> has to go.
> 
> Grammatically, yes, but I'd be loathe to reverse the sense of 
> the statement.  
> If we were trying to draft a legal document (which I realise 
> we're not) this would be an 'active defense'; we're not 
> saying what spam is, but we're allowing one way to determine 
> what isn't.
> 
> "A sender is spamming if he sends a message without the 
> justified expectation that the recipients (however many) are 
> not going to perceive the message as spam."
> 
> How is that?  English is not my native language, so while I 
> still perceive two negations it might still be grammatically 
> sounder (and clearer)?
> 
> I'm a bit worried, though, because I think that also changes 
> the meaning in a sublte and undesirable way; am I the only 
> one to read that version as defining a restrictive metric for 
> spam rather than defining a "this is not spam and here's why" defense?
> 
> Though if this is acceptable, it allows us to clean up the 
> statement and take the sender out entierly:
> 
> "A message is spam if it was sent without the justified 
> expectation that the recipients (however many) are not going 
> to perceive it as spam."
> 
> Stiill two negatives in there, though.  The problem is that 
> "[...] was sent with the justified expectation [...] are 
> going to perceive it as spam." 
> doesn't mean the same thing at all even though the two 
> negatives are reversed.
> 
> You are a considerably better wordcraft in english than I, so 
> I appreciate your input on this.
> 
> -- Marc A. Pelletier
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 


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