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

Bill,

>>The student sends the same query for assistance to each of these people.
BC> Oh, you mean survey spam?

No, this is nothing like a survey. A survey is a formal, structured
measurement instrument.

I'm talking about someone trying to chat up some folk about a topic of
interest.

BC> Hypotheticals are a problem because one can hand-wave relevant

The hypothetical was carefully designed to highlight a mode of
interaction that is of *fundamental benefit* to human activity but would
be excluded by the simplistic, Draconian rules under discussion.

BC> details. Your ellipsis is telling.

Failure to appreciate the essential nature of the example is also
telling.

BC> How DID this student get my address? That's an important bit of
BC> information, and one which you

No it is not important. It does not matter at all.

Please focus on the nature of the communication, not the means of
obtaining the address. That was my specific point.

AP> I think it would be important to note that it is AUTOMATED.

We need a definition that helps us to create rules and software for
prevention, detection and disposition of spam. How do we detect that a
piece of email is automated?

One might argue that comparing hashes of the content are oriented to
this, but note that my example explicitly permitted identical content,
yet was not spam by any reasonable criteria.

HBP> The problem the user wants solved is unwanted email

This means either that the recipient must be able to characterize wanted
vs. unwanted in a way that permits an up-stream filter to distinguish
between them.

And the algorithmic basis for doing that would be...?

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

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