Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Fri, 06 June 2003 13:55 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23648 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h56Dsb525235 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:37 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DsbB25232 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23643; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:54:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHe2-0002Fy-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:52:39 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHe2-0002Fv-00; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:52:38 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DrBB25094; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:53:11 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h56DjvB24764 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:45:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23355 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:45:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHVf-0002BF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:43:59 -0400
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OHVd-0002BC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:43:58 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h56Djhxg013344 for asrg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:45:43 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200306061345.h56Djhxg013344@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
References: <3EE0877E.4070707@garbagedump.com>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:45:43 -0600
> Spam is commercial speech delivered via email. That all too popular but unthinking definition outlaws a lot of mail that people want to receive. Then there is the practical impossibility of using computers to do anything to control commercial speech. Besides that, no thinking ISP or system operator wants to get involved in deciding whether a given bulk spew of messages is commercial, religious, political, or some other catagory that is or is not allowed to be bulk. > Like Danny I don't think "bulk" adds into the equation at all. About the > only place it might enter is in the ISP that provides the bandwidth to > the spammers. Objectionable mail that is not "bulk" does not cause problems that the IETF/IRTF needs or ought to consider. Threats, child pornography, chitchat about terrorism, drugs, unsanctioned political ideas, or any other sort of objectionable mail can be handled by the same mechanisms that deal with the same messages on paper. There is nothing the IRTF/IETF can or should do about them, with the possible exception of efforts like Fred Baker's Internet-Draft about wiretapping at routers. Those recent contributions disagreeing with defining spam as unsolicited bulk email do point out that any definition of "spam" is likely to be hopelessly controversial among the general public, and suggest that this group should concentrate on "consent" and "unsolicited bulk email" without worrying about "spam." Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Peter Kay
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Howard Roth
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Barry Shein
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Howard Roth
- RE: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Danny Angus
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Danny Angus
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … C. Wegrzyn
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Danny Angus
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Scott Nelson
- Re: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Jon Kyme
- RE: RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Paul Judge
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Barry Shein
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Barry Shein
- Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam … Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Eric D. Williams