RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam ........

["Kurt Magnusson" <[e-mail]>]

Bob Wyman wrote:
>Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>>spam = "any email that does not have consent from the receiver"
>I don't think so...
>It may be hard to define "spam" but that doesn't mean that we
....
>For instance, a message from an ex-boy/girlfriend might be
>unwanted but wouldn't normally pass the "smell test" for what is spam.
......
>It would be convenient if we had a nice, tight, broadly accepted
>definition of spam. However, I think we need to give up on even trying

Why don't make it easy and go back to the definition used when the
Green Card-lawyers and Spamford started it.

Commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with = spam
Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with = e-ads   (does not 
mean you want it)
Commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, expected = legal
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with, without a 
purpose = DDoS
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had no contact with a purpose = 
legal
Non-commercial mail from senders you have had contact with, but don't want 
have from = just annoying

Remember also that commercial do not mean it originate from a legal entity.
By narrowing the definition, it get's easier to handle and to find a base 
line
from where we can go further. Reason for the classification, is that I never
seen a spam, that doesn't seem to have a (real or bogus) commercial
message in it. Even those labeled as DDoS seem to have, though illegible,
but still a form for commercial message. And we're back to the issue of the
content and what is "relevant" of it.

Kurt Magnusson

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg