Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 06 June 2003 01:41 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 VAA24858 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h561fW030001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:32 -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 h561fWB29998 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:32 -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 VAA24829; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:41:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6Cd-0005GF-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:39:35 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O6Cd-0005GC-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:39:35 -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 h561XIB28738; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:33:18 -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 h561WAB28674 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:32:10 -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 VAA24590 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 21:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O63a-0005Bc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:30:14 -0400
Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19O63Z-0005BZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:30:13 -0400
Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h561YVF10109; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:34:31 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.63 Beta/6) Personal
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <55373774319.20030605183131@brandenburg.com>
To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
CC: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2
In-Reply-To: <200306060042.h560ghbc019043@calcite.rhyolite.com>
References: <28368267510.20030605165944@brandenburg.com> <200306060042.h560ghbc019043@calcite.rhyolite.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:31:31 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Vernon, >> as I said in the note with the example, it is the combination of >> unsolicited and bulk that make it spam. Remove either qualifier and it >> is something else. VS> Oh, that's not what I understood you to write. Just for reference, this was the note with the example I was citing: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05183.html> VS> Why must the dividing line by a single fixed number for us humans? We want to build software to prevent, detect or dispose of spam. Software does not know about "reasonable" definitions of "bulk". What is the algorithm we should feed the software? For these discussions, I am not in the least concerned with legal aspects of enforcement or rule-making. I want software algorithms. VS> Why can't we define "bulk" as "bulk" for human discourse but let people VS> installing spam-bulk-alarms use thresholds appropriate for local VS> conditions or other constraints? This is one of those questions that needs to get two different answers: 1. We must, of course, let individual users have control over parameters. 2. Individuals will get these parameters wrong, especially if they are FORCED to set them. It is one thing to have common agreement of commonly-acceptable parameters, and then permit "tuning" by inidividual users. It is another to have no consistent construct (threshholds) anywhere in the system. 3. (Bonus answer, beyond the promised 2) The enforcement is often by an intermediary and I guarantee that they will set the parameters differently than the recipient wants. This is the really major reason to do interoperability standards, rather than just letting everybody set the details themselves. VS> Ok, but building software is quite distinct from defining offenses. I thought this was a technical discussion list, so I was -- perhaps foolishly -- thinking that we wanted to vector definitions to a place that permitted implementation by software, rather than courts. VS> Trying to define spam as that which we our comptuers can detect is a VS> serious mistake. As you and others have often said, we cannot hope VS> to eliminate all spam. An equivalent statement is that we cannot hope VS> for our computers to detect all spam. Frankly, I am hoping that we simply get away from the term. No, I do not think we can agree on a universal, all-encompassing definition for spam and, no, I do not think we can prevent or detect all spam. That's why I am in the group that believes we should settle on a definition of something that we CAN operationalizem, for which improved control will mean improved Internet usability. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301> _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Dave Crocker
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 Vernon Schryver
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay
- RE: [Asrg] criteria for spam V2 (was: Implicit Co… Peter Kay