Re: *Possible Spam *RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2

On June 6, 2003 at 07:45 vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) wrote:
 > Those recent contributions disagreeing with defining spam as unsolicited
 > bulk email do point out that any definition of "spam" is likely to be
 > hopelessly controversial among the general public, and suggest that this
 > group should concentrate on "consent" and "unsolicited bulk email" without
 > worrying about "spam."

I think it suggests we concentrate on illegal+unethical methods
spammers exploit in the hope of at least making them more accountable,
as a first project.

That's why the whole RMX thing came up.

I don't happen to agree that it's very germaine to spamming but I also
don't think it's a bad thing either.

But it's in the space of fraudulent identity which spammers do
exploit, which I think is one reason why it rang true with a lot of
people even if (as I fear) it's not all that much help with spam.

I think the deep social wisdom that comes through the ages is make
them put their name on it and it'll stop. Just don't ask me how.

-- 
        -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