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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> 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]"? 
> 
> The canonical definition of spam (in the context of email) was settled
> on a very long time ago ("unsolicited bulk email") and is NOT in need of
> tinkering or refinement.  It's served us very well -- and one reason
> why is that it's *deliberately* silent on a number of points.  It would
> be a very serious mistake -- one that would greatly assist spammers --
> to change that situation.

UBE is still better than "the class of Messages which the Recipient 
wishes to prevent from ever being presented with." In particular, it 
allows to determine a message's spaminess *on sending*.

However, expanding on that definition may be useful for a number of 
purposes. I mention two:

1. Many countries now have laws that address privacy, and it would be 
informative for postmasters, managers, and lawyers to know what each 
one's neighbor is talking about.

2. We don't fight spam as a uniform diffused phenomenon, and some 
tools are better than others in specific areas. For example, 
discerning direct marketing from zombies is just practical. How would 
that assist which kind of spammer?