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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...
> 
> > From: "Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>
> 
> > ...
> > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email
> >
> > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a
> > primarily automated process.
> >
> > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not
> > implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the
sender.
> >
> > Sender can mean an individual or an organization.
> >
> > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given
sender
> > if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the
> > recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email
from
> > the sender.
> 
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com]
> I'm sorry, but I find that last paragraph very wrong.  Silence in the
> face of spam is never consent to more spam!
> 

I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either
that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is
that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to
receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving
email from you.  

> Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede
> first message.  

Agreed.  my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not
"ube".

> It does not matter how the consent is expressed,
> whether by a proper mailing list subscription including confirmation
> or some other message.  It does matter that spam is spam even it
> claims "There is no need to unsubscribe since this is a one-time
mailing."
> (That phrase was once very common in spam.  It's more common now )
> 

agreed and the above does not contradict that.

> Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are
> distracting and irrelevant.  It does not matter whether an
advertisement
> is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson
> addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to
> send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota."
> 

if you can define "bulk" to handle that case I'm all for it.

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