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

Could you all and others please forward to me a brief definition of what 
criteria you would consider for spam.  I will attempt to conform the criteria 
and present that later to the list and as an addition to the requirements draft 
set of definitions.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:33 PM, Barry Shein [SMTP:bzs@world.std.com] wrote:
8<...>8
>   Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for
>   the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving.
>
> I think the loss of control is very much at the heart of spam and many
> other attempts at definition dance around this somewhat.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:51 PM, Bill Cole [SMTP:aarg@billmail.scconsult.com] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part
> of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to
> send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent
> to multiple recipients.
>
> In short: unsolicited bulk email.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:30 PM, Peter Kay [SMTP:peter@titankey.com] wrote:
8<...>8
> Here's mine:
>
> Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit
> authorization of the recipient.

===Some of the prior input.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:18 AM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:brad@templetons.com] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> My current impression of the intersection definition is mail that is:
>
> 		    Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some
> 			person commanded that mail be sent to more than
> 			a few hundred people
>
> 		    The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has
> 			had voluntary contact with the sender in the past
>
> 		    Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition,
> 			but usually only if not including the mass mailing
> 			component, so this might not stay)
>
> 		    The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the
> 			recipient
>
> 		    If was not directly solicited (ie. is sent due to
> 			an existing relationship) the sender adheres to
> 			a reasonable and operational system to allow the
> 			recipient to ask not to be mailed again (See #4)

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:22 AM, David Walker [SMTP:antispam@grax.com] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using fake e-mail
> headers and/or underhanded techniques.
>
> Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using legitimate
> techniques (no fake headers) or semi-legitimate techniques but sent to
> individuals who either opted out or never opted in to receiving mails from
> the sender.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:18 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:jrk@merseymail.com] wrote:
8<...>8
> Well (referring to the charter) how about:
> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended
> recipient.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 10:52 PM, Eric D. Williams [SMTP:eric@infobro.com] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> SPAM - 1. Messaging in the MTS which violates best current practices for MTA
> providers to assure proper canonical representation of it's originator. 2. A
> message that does not reflect accurate information for its originator or that
> is transmitted with simulated information nominally used to trace origination
> [that's a tight squeeze as it ignores incorrect configurations].  3) A 
message
> with fraudulent tracking information that is in fact flawed at origination to
> obfuscate its origin.
>
> SPAMMER - A user, company or other end entity that engages in introducing 
SPAM
> into the MTS.

On Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:38 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
[SMTP:pbaker@verisign.com] wrote:
8<...>8
> 	Spam = Unwanted and indiscriminate messages
>
> Works fine here.

On Friday, April 04, 2003 8:55 AM, Jim Youll [SMTP:jim@media.mit.edu] wrote:
8<...>8
> I suggest, but nobody will listen:
>
> "Spam" - a generic term for a problem in electronic mail whereby
> people are receiving messages that they don't want to receive, and
> can't stop. The "spam problem" is very simply about the right to be
> left alone.
>
> "(fill in precise language here)" - suitable plain language for a
> particular type of sender, message, measurement or other thing
> related to the spam problem... one example would be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail from strangers" which can be packed into 'UCE' when
> appropriate. "Spammer" is appropriate when referring to a generic
> class. "Stock scammer" would be more specific.

-e

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