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

["Peter Kay" <[e-mail]>]

> 
> > ...
> > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted?
> 
> Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a 
> long time ago.
> 
> 

So I'll take it you're saying email is inherently untrusted.

> > Is all email considered unsolicited until the recipient says 
> > otherwise?
> 
> Some kinds of mail has implicit consent.  Almost everyone who 
> has a public mailbox welcomes or at least consents to 
> non-bulk, inoffensive mail.  There is a good analogy between 
> the calls you implicitly consent to receive at a "published" 
> (i.e. not "unlisted") telephone number and the mail you 
> implicitly consent to receive at an email address that you 
> have published in directories or divulged to individuals or 
> organizations.
> 
> The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam.
> 
> 

See, but that's where we have to draw the line. We have to have a clear,
black line that says this is spam and this is not. And it can't be based
on content. And it can't be based on "it bothers me".

So if we're saying, "if you have a public mailbox, you are implying
consent", then so be it (I would not agree w/ that but that's not the
point).  We can't say "I'm public, so I'm impling consent for any email
that doesn't bother me".




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