RE: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

> > Unwanted and indiscriminate.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> > I think that I have a right to send anything that the sender wants
> > to receive.
> 
> That's arguable (assuming you mean that the _receiver_ wants to
> receive, otherwise it's nonsense).

sorry, receiver wants to receive.

> > Since that is not a decidable set I think it is reasonable
> > to widen the definition of what I may send to include anything that
> > I might reasonably believe that the recipient wants to receive.
> 
> That's not reasonable.  It doesn't matter what you believe.  What
> matters is what the recipient consented to.  (If you want a free pass
> for sending something that the recipient wants but didn't actually
> consent to, fine: it won't generate any complaints.)

No, that means nobody can ever initiate an email contact which is 
idiotic. 

I assume that since you replied to an email message of mine that
you don't mind receiving a reply in return.

> If you ever guess wrong, then you're a spammer.

I disagree, most crimes require a guilty mind. I don't see why anything
as trivial as sending unwanted junk should require a higher standard
to be applied. There is also the free speech dimension.

> I think you have the right to take anything that the owner wants you
> to take.  Since that's not decidable either, if you widened the
> definition in the same way, you'd become a thief if you ever guessed
> wrong.

No because the set of items it would be reasonable to believe I would
want you to take away is negligible. 

Anyways, we are getting into definitions of spam that has been declared
off topic. I think we should declare sender pays schemes off topic as 
well since discussion on that topic is also pointless.

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