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

--On 26 June 2009 10:42:55 -0400 Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:

> Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>> --On 26 June 2009 10:11:49 -0400 Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frankly, I don't like that definition. Specifically it misses an
>>>> important class of spam - well targeted, individualised, unsolicited
>>>> marketing messages which are necessarily unique (and hence not
>>>> bulk).
>>>
>>> What makes them unique?  If the individualisation is merely a mail
>>> merge, they're still bulk.  If the salescritter spent an hour
>>> investigating me in order to determine that I'm a good prospect and
>>> figure out the best way to entice me, the problem scales just fine.
>>
>> And how would I, as a recipient, know which had happened? How would
>> I know whether to report the message as spam?
>
> If it isn't apparent from the message itself, you probably shouldn't
> be on the net without adult supervision.

Really, SMTP has some feature that lets me determine -from the content of 
an email- exactly how that email was constructed and who spent what amount 
of time putting it together? Neat. Is that in RFC 2821 of 2822. Must be 
2822, since you said "from the message itself".

Well, there's our solution then. We just need to examine the content of the 
X-i-struggled-for-half-an-hour-to-discover-whether-you'd-be-likely-to-be-interested-in-this-offer 
header.

> Seth
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/