Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Fri, 06 June 2003 02:01 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 WAA25196 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56211930715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:01 -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 h56211B30712 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:01:01 -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 WAA25183; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:00:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6VU-0005MN-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:59:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6VU-0005MK-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:59:04 -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 h561o9B30268; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:50:09 -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 h561nVB30223 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:49:31 -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 VAA25009 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:49:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6KM-0005Ii-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:47:34 -0400
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6KK-0005If-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:47:33 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h561nDSu005726 for asrg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200306060149.h561nDSu005726@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
References: <55373774319.20030605183131@brandenburg.com>
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: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:49:13 -0600
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> > ... > VS> Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a > VS> serious mistake. As you and others have often said, we cannot hope > VS> to eliminate all spam. An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope > VS> for our computers to detect all spam. > > Frankly, I am hoping that we simply get away from the term. No, I do > not think we can agree on a universal, all-encompassing definition for > spam and, no, I do not think we can prevent or detect all spam. > > That's why I am in the group that believes we should settle on a > definition of something that we CAN operationalizem, for which improved > control will mean improved Internet usability. It would also be a major mistake to define "unsolicited bulk email" as that which our computers can detect. As in any technical design process, the first step is to figure out what we're doing. Nit picking about whether the word "bulk" in the requirements document should be 2 or 3 is destructive. We must address the fuzziness of "bulk" only when we worry about reducing the requirements to something for the computers. Judging from other contributions about "largely automated mechanims" and so forth, we are not ready for that. Besides, your bit about the student does not seem to be about resolving the fuzziness of "bulk" but finding contractions between the fuzzy human notion and what computers will do and so throwing out the notion entirely. Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you instead saying that 2 is the wrong value of "bulk" for computers? If so, what number do you prefer? For what it's worth, most of the thousands of operators of DCC clients seem to prefer either values between 20 and 100 or the special infinite or overflow count of targets that means "incredibly bulky because the message hit a spam trap." (One of the critical parameters for a DCC client is the local threshold for "bulk.") Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Dave Crocker
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay