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

On Saturday, Jun 7, 2003, at 18:24 US/Eastern, Margie Arbon wrote:
> --On Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:36 PM -0400 mathew <meta@pobox.com> 
> wrote:
>> - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for the
>> recipient to stop from sending further messages.
>
> There are ~25,000,000 small businesses in the US alone. If 10% of them 
> decided to send you one email per year, you would get 6,849 peices of 
> mail a day.  It would be hard or impossible to get those to stop.

You seem to be in agreement with me then, since I would consider small 
businesses each sending me one unsolicited marketing message per year 
as spam.

>> - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an organization the
>> recipient does not have any prior relationship with.
>
> Define prior business relationship.

It's up for debate. I'd start with something fairly tight, like I have 
to have given them the information. Remember, we're talking about 
sufficient, not necessary, conditions.

>> - It is bulk e-mail from an organization the recipient does have a
>> prior relationship with, but the subject matter of the e-mail is
>> outside the scope of subject matter about which the recipient
>> agreed to receive e-mail from the organization.
>
> Define "agreed".  The recipient and the sender often have varying 
> definitions of "permission".

Again, I'd take the conservative route, and say that I must have 
explicitly stated that I agree to it.

>> - It is bulk e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not
>> send him any further e-mail.
>
> One free bite? No.

You seem not to understand the concept of "sufficient but not 
necessary". I am defining that if I've asked not to get e-mail and I 
still get it, it's spam. I'm NOT saying that if I haven't asked not to 
get e-mail, it's not spam.

mathew

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