Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2

Vernon,

>> From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>

>> ...
>> The example I posted about a student sending personal queries to some
>> experts -- and let's remember it does not matter how the student got
>> their addresses -- is unsolicited, but should not count as bulk.
>> ...

VS> Why not!?  "Bulk" does not mean "spam," if you are defining "spam"
VS> and you are not insisting that "spam" and "bulk" are synonyms.

as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of
unsolicited and bulk that make it spam.  Remove either qualifier and it
is something else.

VS> If your student sent a lot of substantially identical messages, it makes
VS> no sense to say they are not bulk.

The problem is with the distinction between "a lot" and "not a lot".  If
the student sends 2, it is not bulk.  If they send 1,000,000 it is.
Where is the line that divides?  Why?

VS> It's crazy to set out to define "spam" and procede by redefining
VS> words that are already well defined in English.

I agree entirely.

VS>   If you think
VS> "unsolicited bulk email" is a bad definition of "spam," then propose
VS> other English (or Latin, or whatever) words.

perhaps it will help if you respond to the detail of my earlier post,
where I suggest that UBE is a good working term, and then consider the
challenges to qualifying the components.

And, yes, I think that the "reasonable person" approach has its uses,
but not enough for building software.

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