RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2

On Friday, June 06, 2003 1:56 PM, Scott Nelson [SMTP:scott@spamwolf.com] wrote:
8<...>8
> 
> I fear nothing good will come of this thread.

I think that something good just did. :-)

-e

On Friday, June 06, 2003 1:56 PM, Scott Nelson [SMTP:scott@spamwolf.com] wrote:
8<moved from top>8
> For example, IMO Spam is excessive unwanted email, not unsolicited bulk.
> But most use the term "unsolicited" because "unwanted" is such a 
> fuzzy concept.  To my way of thinking, "unsolicited" is the just
> the best test we can apply to determine if an email is in the class
> of things we can do something about.  So we filter UBE because
> it's much easier to understand what that should do, and how to do it.
> "Spam" isn't "UBE" exactly, (though there's a lot of overlap),
> and the concept is "don't try and claim UBE is the definition of spam,
> but rather, say we're going after UBE which is close enough to what
> most people think of as spam that it's good enough".
> 
> 
> Bulk is also a fuzzy concept.  But just because there are
> shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white.
> Rather than defining the line, we could define the gray area.
> I.e.  1000 or more is bulk.  1 or less is not.
> Between 1 and 1000 may or may not be bulk, but the dividing
> line requires human judgement and depends on circumstances,
> so we're not going be any more precise than that.
> 
> In my experience, this sort of "fuzzy area" definition is
> accepted immediately by spam fighters, though they question
> if we can't be less generous and reduce the number to say 100,
> or maybe even 20. 
> But it's completely unacceptable to spammer fighters.
> Just suggesting it can polarize the group and ultimately 
> result in one camp storming off.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg