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

[Steve Atkins <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Danny Angus wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:05 PM, J.D. Falk<[e-mail] 
> > wrote:
>> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>
>>> However, I think an it could, and should, go beyond that. 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]"?
>>
>> Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure  
>> that a
>> document is never finished.
>
>
> In fact trying to define spam would ensure it never got started!
>
> Actually I would have liked to have included *some* definition, but
> because members of this group hold pretty entrenched opinions covering
> most possible definitions I felt that on the one hand it would be
> impossible and on the other hand it would be unecessary.
>
> I believe that it is unnecessary for two reasons, the first being that
> this group cannot agree a definition, yet operates reasonably
> successfully, and secondly there can be an empirical test for a
> solution, even if there is no agreed definition of spam itself.

One issue is that there are a number of definitions of spam that
are useful in different contexts. The definition that's useful for
operational handling at an abuse desk is different to that for
operational handling of inbound mail filters, different again to
that useful for someone developing content based filters, different
again for someone drafting legislation and very different again
for someone litigating.

All of these definitions are fairly well defined and extremely useful
in the context in which they're used. And they'll generally agree
on the categorization of the vast majority of emails, but there are
emails where they'll disagree. This isn't a problem.

The problem arises when someone, anyone, claims that there is
One True Definition of spam. The fact that that's blatantly false
isn't the problem. That it causes hordes of people to come out of
the woodwork to argue for their One True Definition of spam, causing
yet another rerun of the Thread That Would Not Die is the problem.

(A problem that's usually best solved by killfiling anyone participating
in that sort of thread).

Cheers,
   Steve