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

>From: "Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>

Amplifying on Vernon's comments, and an observation of my own concerning
"intent" as an element of a spam definition.

Re:  

> Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a 
> primarily automated process.

This definition would include any use of Cc: (or indeed 2 or more To:
recipients) as "bulk email".  Use of multiple recipients or cc: results in
the transmission of 2 or more emails, one to each recipient, through a
primarily automated process.    The problem is the fuzziness of the noun
"email".   How do you "count" emails?  From a sender's point of view, one
email is sent.  From the recipients' aggregate points of view, multiple
emails are received.  

Any definition of spam that would include a normal message cc'ed to one
other person is broken.

> Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email

Also, regarding "unsolicited":  there are shades of gray there. A government
representative/parliament member/etc. may by default be assumed to have
solicited emails from any member of his/her consistuency (without having to
individually consent to/solicit transmissions from each consistuent).  This
does not mean they also have by default solicited advertisements for growth
creams.  

Similar examples would be a newspaper editorial desk or a commercial
complaints department.  These recipients could be assumed to have solicited
email from any sender, and in the case of the editorial desk, on any
subject, but again, this does not mean that all emails whatsoever have been
solicited.

*****

A good criteria for "what is spam" would seem in my opinion to be based on
the _intent_ of the sender.  This is of course an elusive thing to measure
via protocol or filtering rules.  Intent is often measured by other
non-human systems using techniques such as:

* Heuristics (which could be implemented at sender, relay, or recipient)
which gauge intent and apply filtering, marking or classification
* Improved human-computer interaction at the sender, which measures intent
of the sender interactively
* Imposing some form of cost (not necessarily financial) upon the sender,
causing the sender to self-impose heuristics related to intent

One issue with the above techniques is that access to raw SMTP allows some
of the above to be bypassed (notably any measures taken within the sender's
client).  However, measures implemented within the relay or at the recipient
end, as well as certain cost-based measures, could still be quite effective
at measuring intent.

+ Mark Anthony Beadles  + mbeadles@smartpipes.com +
+       Chief Architect + SmartPipes, Inc.        +
+   Vox 614.923.5657    +     Fax 614.923.6299    +

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