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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

J.D. Falk wrote:
>> 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]"?
> 
> Because attempting to define "spam" is the very best way to ensure that 
> a document is never finished.

Finishing a document, by itself, is not a progress in the anti-spam 
endeavor, unless it contains useful knowledge for countering spam. I 
suspect that if we are not even able to agree on a definition of spam, 
there will never be much efficient anti-spam research by our group. 
And if people were to judge such research by the spam levels out 
there, they'd conclude it's all hot air.

Could we start again, please?

Let me try the following variation on UBE, in order to see if we can 
classify the objections against adopting it as a working definition.

  *Spam* is a message or a class of messages composed automatically,
  possibly using templates and databases of names or words, using a
  list of destination mailbox addresses, and failing to meet both the
  following conditions:
  * There is a record or evidence whatsoever, even implied, that the
    recipient has registered, subscribed, or otherwise solicited the
    message; and
  * it is obvious from the message content, including the headers,
    who is in charge of controlling the processing, and how the
    recipients can amend or delete their addresses from the list (as
    well as any other part of their personally identifiable data from
    any database used to compose the message), where "obvious" means
    the relevant entity is indicated, exists, is normally reachable by
    the recipient, and is effectual to the purpose it is referred for.