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

[Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> That paper thickens the ranks of anti-anti-spam trenches. It is good as 
> it avoids an excess of proposal that would possibly result in a waste of 
> time for evaluating proposed techniques that don't come quite close to 
> the point. 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]"? 

The canonical definition of spam (in the context of email) was settled
on a very long time ago ("unsolicited bulk email") and is NOT in need of
tinkering or refinement.  It's served us very well -- and one reason
why is that it's *deliberately* silent on a number of points.  It would
be a very serious mistake -- one that would greatly assist spammers --
to change that situation.

---Rsk