Re: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...

On June 5, 2003 at 08:08 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote:
 > Many entities run bulk mail operations.  CNN's "news updates" are
 > certainly "bulk" regardless of how many of their subscribers respond.
 > Provided CNN can show that each and every target subscribed, whether
 > with
 >    - logs of an HTTP hit on a unique, unguessable URL sent only to
 >       the subscribing address,
 >    - a mail message carrying a unique, unguessable key sent only to
 >       the subscribing address,
 >    - some other mechanism that convincingly shows that the owner of
 >       the address and no third party or CNN did the subscribing,
 > then CNN's bulk mail is not "unsolicited" and so not spam.

Ah, Vernon, you're so generous, let's rephrase this just slightly:

If CNN's recipient list meets the criteria you outline then the bulk
mailing must be delivered for free and without interference.

Who exactly is to provide these bottomless resources is not your
concern, resources must be provided because it'd be FAIR, and we all
know the world is free of starving children, people w/o proper medical
care, and victims of despots, because if it's FAIR then it's field of
dreams, the resources must appear.

So, if CNN behaves FAIRLY, then whatever resources they need must be
made to appear. Anything else would be, well, UNFAIR!

Ok, one might say, well, they don't really care, in this context, if
it's free per se, that's just a market consideration and orthogonal.

But then I'd reply that's contrived patter and what's meant is free,
or certainly independent of any realistic scaling. Who are we kidding?

Follow the rules we lay down and your reward is unlimited access to
mailboxes basically for free (let's not quibble the nanopennies.)

I'm only trying to point out that the "spam" problem is huge, much
more huge than focusing on "stuff we don't want" belies.

It's the old problem of everyone running around trying to stick
someone else with the bill.

Which is one main reason I'm suggesting we focus down on the illegal
and unethical (by which I mean "ought to be illegal if not") methods
the worst spammers use.

The main reasoning being that I think we can all pretty well
understand identity forging, open relays, viruses etc, as bad things
which need to be contained.

But on the bigger issue, with all due respect, I think the naivete'
being displayed here is alarming.

As I've said, those multi-billion dollar big company ad budgets are
just waiting for you (collective "you", "us") to solve all this and
clear them a free, smooth road to travel on.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg