Reaching consensus on 'what is spam' (Was RE: [Asrg] Another crit eria for "what is spam"...)
Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com> Mon, 09 June 2003 13:19 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03440 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h59DJFS01326 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:15 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DJFB01323 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:15 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03436; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMWN-0003KF-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:17:11 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMWM-0003KC-00; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:17:10 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DHKB01265; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:17:20 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h59DGUB01226 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:16:30 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03402 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMTh-0003JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:14:25 -0400
Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19PMTh-0003JN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:14:25 -0400
Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <G7BLWCJT>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: <B1F08F445F370846AB7BEE424365F00D012F2808@ctxchg.ciphertrust.com>
From: Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>
To: "'asrg@ietf.org'" <asrg@ietf.org>
Cc: 'Dave Aronson' <dja2003@hotpop.com>, 'mathew' <meta@pobox.com>
Subject: Reaching consensus on 'what is spam' (Was RE: [Asrg] Another crit eria for "what is spam"...)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:03:34 -0400
Folks, we will not continue to have this debate. If you read Mathew's email (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05315.htm l), it enumeates sufficient conditions rather than sufficient and necessary conditions. What this means is that email began a list of the possible personal definitions of spam. Therefore, there is no need to debate each of these definitions. Now, take such a list and couple it with the approach that I presented in a previous message (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05307.htm l): "The point here is to generalize to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam' to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced. Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email. A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a consent-based communication system. As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse these assumptions." We will capture this thought and the list of sufficient conditions that have been stated on the mailing list and compile them in the Requirements document. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Aronson [mailto:dja2003@hotpop.com] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:48 AM > To: mathew > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"... > > > mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote: > > > Each of the following conditions is sufficient, but not > > necessary, for an e-mail to be categorized as spam: > > > > - It is from a source which it is hard or impossible for > the > recipient to stop from sending further messages. > > > - It is unsolicited commercial bulk e-mail from an > organization the > recipient does not have any prior > relationship with. > > - 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. > > - It is bulk > e-mail from a source the recipient has requested not > send > him any further e-mail. > > The last one is merely a subset of the prior -- it is outside > the scope > because the scope has been explicitly reduced to the null set. The > first one, in turn, could also be considered a case of the last one. > > Also, the second is faulty in that such email needn't be > commercial to be > spam. Remember the religious, political, and a few other > kinds of spam. > > -- > David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near > Washington DC See http://destined.to/program/ for online > resume, and other info > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg