RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2

Vernon,

> 
> Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but 
> let people installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds 
> appropriate for local conditions or other constraints?  For 
> example, a reasonable threshold for a spam-bulk-alarm at AOL 
> might be 1000.  At a vanity domain SMTP server like 
> Rhyolite.com, 3 is reasonable and 5 is generous because any 
> message that hits 5 addresses @rhyolite.com is practically 
> certain to be hitting 50,000,000 at AOL.
> 

I don't think we can "define 'bulk' as 'bulk'" because the definition of
"bulk" in the dictionary does not apply at all. Maybe http://www.m-w.com
is the wrong place. What definition do you get when you look up "bulk".

We need to define "bulk" within the context of UBE.  If we can't define
UBE how can we possibly hope to do any meaningful research on it? 

> 
> Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining 
> offenses. Let's first define the offense of "spam" and then 
> decide how to approximately characterize it for our stupid 
> computers.  Let's also be entirely clear when we are talking 
> about spam and when we are talking about whatever our 
> computers can detect or defend against.
> 

Isn't that what we're trying to do? Did I miss something? Aren't we
trying to define what is spam and what is not? Or is the definition of
an "offense" something else entirely.

Peter

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