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

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Fri, 26 June 2009 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mouse@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E53428C122 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.953, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VU+-ERmkVe9G for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D52E28C0EC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17182; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:44:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <200906261444.KAA17182@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:36:26 -0400
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9088C3969464C4F82C833994@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
References: <4A43B696.2000106@cybernothing.org> <4A449A7C.6070106@tana.it> <20090626100736.GA29159@gsp.org> <9088C3969464C4F82C833994@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:44:51 -0000

>> The canonical definition of spam (in the context of email) was
>> settled on a very long time ago ("unsolicited bulk email") [...]
> Frankly, I don't like that definition. Specifically it misses an
> important class of spam - well targeted, individualised, unsolicited
> marketing messages which are necessarily unique (and hence not bulk).

The "bulk" in UBE is the same one in the Briedbart Index for Usenet:
they have to be substantively identical.  Form-letter "personalization"
of the "Dear %s, [invariant text]" kind does not make them non-bulk.
Neither do hashbusters or randomized spelling errors.

However, if they are individualized in the sense that they don't use
invariant text, each one being written for the particular recipient,
then they're not spam, even if they are unsolicited and/or unwanted:
they may be problematic, but at worst they are abuse _on_ the net, not
abuse _of_ the net - that is to say, that problem, even if it _is_ a
problem, scales just fine.

Just don't think "spam" needs to include all problematic email (or
something equivalent, such as "if it's not spam it must be OK").

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse@rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B