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

This might not help but when I think of spam I don't focus on the sender 
(since defining bulk is a killer) but on the results. I'll bet almost 
all 'non-spam' emails involve an exchange between end-points - why else 
send email in the first place. Bulk or spamming is when you send out 
email and don't expect to get a response from the majority (define it as 
under 90% or 100% or whatever).

FWIW,
Chuck Wegrzyn

Dave Aronson wrote:

>Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > On June 4, 2003 at 15:53 peter@titankey.com (Peter Kay) wrote:
> >  > Yes but we can't define bulk mailing as spamming. But we CAN
> >  > define that UNSOLICITED bulk email is spamming.
> >
> > Actually, I'm not that uncomfortable with defining any "bulk mailing"
> > as spamming.
> >
> > I realize I won't get consensus on that here.
>
>At least, not unless we can agree on what "bulk" means.  By the 
>definition proposed so far (sending to > 1 recipient, by a largely 
>automated means (not counting the automation necessary to send email at 
>all, of course)), this very list is bulk.  So is every other.  So are 
>any alerts anybody signs up for.  Where do YOU draw the line?
>
> > But then again few of you are ISPs expected to just come up with the
> > money for resources for every blitz by every fortune 1,000,000
> > company who decides to unload on their (let's say for argument's
> > sake) legitimate mailing list hourly.
>
>If the ISP didn't put anything in the TOS about using too much bandwidth, 
>it's their own damn fault.  You can be sure that something about it WILL 
>be in there come contract renewal time, or the ISP will insist that they 
>upgrade to a higher account type.
>
> > Special fares at United Airlines? Delta? Wham! Here comes 10,000 msgs
> > you frequent flyers!
> >
> > Campbell's has a new recipe they want to share? Open wide!
> >
> > NY Times, Wall St Journal, Motley Fool, Salon, etc want to send their
> > daily headlines and advertising payload? K'POW!
>
>These sorts of things almost certainly already have very high bandwidth 
>connections.  Sure, not as much as they would if they abused the system 
>as you propose, but see above.
>
>Also, unlike the normal hit-and-run spammer, these entities give half a 
>damn about not pissing off the recipients, and about their brand 
>reputation.  If they get tons of unsubscribes every time their 
>emails-per-week exceeds some reasonable amount (as determined by the 
>subscribers individually), you can bet they'd back off.
>
> > This exercise is kinda like watching legislators make law, the OTHER
> > guy's use of tax money is a waste, but MY use of tax money is
> > essential to civilization!
>
>On that we can agree!  Just remember that it works on both sides of the 
>table: "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree!"
>
> > This is why, without per-message fees, this system is doomed. It's
> > just a matter of time.
>
>This system is indeed absolutely doomed, but I don't agree that fees are 
>the only way to fix it.
>
>  
>

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