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

> From: "Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>

> ...
> I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either
> that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is
> that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to
> receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving
> email from you.  

No, it was my mistake.  I didn't see who sent the initial mail to
whom.  However, while I'm not outraged by what you really wrote as
was by what I thought I read, I still don't agree.  A public address
that does not imply implicit consent to receive mail that is not "spam"
(whatever the definition) is nonsensical.  

> > Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede
> > first message.  
>
> Agreed.  my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not
> "ube".

I don't understand.  If a published mail address (e.g. in an ISP's
user directory) does not implicitly give permission for non-bulk mail
then, what's the point of publishing the address?

Or do you mean that sending a mail message amounts to publishing it?

> ...
> agreed and the above does not contradict that.
>
> > Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are
> > distracting and irrelevant.  It does not matter whether an advertisement
> > is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson
> > addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to
> > send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota."
>
> if you can define "bulk" to handle that case I'm all for it.

Again, "bulk" should be defined just as fuzzily as "malice" is defined
for "burglary" when in an ISP "court" deciding whether an account
should be terminated.  Computers are obliged to define "bulk" with a
number, but we can use a sane definition that lets me send you an
unsolicited question about your C/R system with a copy to the mailing
list.  There is no conflict, just as there is no conflict between
burglar alarms using a simplistic definition for detecting burglary
of "anyone here no matter who or why" and courts using a fuzzy definition
of "without authorization and with malice" for conviction.

Your anti-spam defenses might detect my unsolicited question with a
copy to this list as bulk as well as unsolicited, but that's just
life.  If you have legitimate dealings in buildings with burglar
alarms, you must take precautions to avoid setting them off, and that's
also just life.

Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg