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

"Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com> Thu, 05 June 2003 02:47 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23278 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:47:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h552kmx11478 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:48 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552kmB11475 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23238; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:46:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkkG-0002SX-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:44:52 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkkF-0002SU-00; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:44:51 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552gNB11225; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:42:23 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h552fmB11176 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:41:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23025 for <Asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:41:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkfQ-0002PM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:39:52 -0400
Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NkfP-0002P1-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 22:39:51 -0400
Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-7.14) id AE2212A0088; Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:42:42 -1000
Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 02:45:48 GMT
X-Titankey-e_id: <72fecd35-53f5-4e23-b1e1-b70cc6f2c277>
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Message-ID: <DD198B5D07F04347B7266A3F35C42B0B0D8B9A@io.cybercom.local>
Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...
Thread-Index: AcMrCMuGSqREBsv5QkyrEiFkjxG5gQAArHng
From: Peter Kay <peter@titankey.com>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Cc: Asrg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h552fmB11177
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:41:14 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> 
> > From: "Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>
> 
> > > > ...
> > > > is Internet email inherently trusted or is it untrusted?
> > > 
> > > Trust is gone, just as it evaporated from voice telephones a
> > > long time ago.
> >
> > So I'll take it you're saying email is inherently untrusted.
> 
> I guess it was a mistake to dodge your use of "trust" before. 
> What do you mean by "trusted"?  Trusted to be, say, or do 
> what? Email was never trusted to be more than an unsigned 
> inter-office memo. If you mean "generally trusted to not be 
> spam," then yes, that trust has been gone for years.  The 
> justification of this group is to recover that trust.
> 
> 

Good point. "Trusted" here means "trust that email is not unsolicited"

> > ...
> > > The telephone calls that bother people are similar to mail spam.
> >
> > See, but that's where we have to draw the line. We have to have a 
> > clear, black line that says this is spam and this is not. 
> And it can't 
> > be based on content. And it can't be based on "it bothers me".
> 
> The definition of spam can't be "it bothers me," but it also 
> cannot and must not be defined by "clear black line."  That's 
> been my point about burglary and many other crimes.  "Insider 
> trading" is in the news today. It is another example of a 
> crime that if you tried to deliniate it with a clear black 
> line, either it or all stock trading would disappear.
> 
> 

I disagree. If you don't have a clear black line, you'll have spam. Draw
the line. Take the heat, but draw the line. Let some people get pissed
off. Too bad. 


> > So if we're saying, "if you have a public mailbox, you are implying 
> > consent", then so be it (I would not agree w/ that but 
> that's not the 
> > point).
> 
> It is nonsense to have a public mailbox that does not accept 
> any mail from strangers.  If you don't want at least some 
> unsolicited mail, you should block the slot in your mailbox 
> and save yourself grief.
> 

There's nothing wrong w/ unsolicited email.  But there's everything
wrong w/ unsolicited BULK email.

> >          We can't say "I'm public, so I'm impling consent for any 
> > email that doesn't bother me".
> 
> That's as true as the analogous statements about telephone 
> harassment and computer network security.
> 
> The clear black lines that computers can see, such as burglar 
> alarm motion sensors, do and should differ from the fuzzy 
> lines humans use.
> 
> The difficulty in defining spam is that many people insist on 
> using the email equivalents of motion sensors to not only 
> detect spam but to define it.
> 

That's only true if we define spam according to fuzzy logic related to
content and intent.  If we make the definition black and white (i.e.
motion sensor) then we can contain, measure, and solve the problem.



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg