Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)

[Danny Angus <danny.angus at gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM, J.D. Falk<jdfalk-lists at cybernothing.org> wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> However, I think an it could, and should, go beyond that. For
>> example, why is it not in the scope of that document "to attempt to
>> distinguish or justify any more detailed definition of [the term spam]"?
>
> Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure that a
> document is never finished.


In fact trying to define spam would ensure it never got started!

Actually I would have liked to have included *some* definition, but
because members of this group hold pretty entrenched opinions covering
most possible definitions I felt that on the one hand it would be
impossible and on the other hand it would be unecessary.

I believe that it is unnecessary for two reasons, the first being that
this group cannot agree a definition, yet operates reasonably
successfully, and secondly there can be an empirical test for a
solution, even if there is no agreed definition of spam itself.

d.