IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)

Seth <sethb@panix.com> Fri, 26 June 2009 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <sethb@panix.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388B128C145 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.225
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5u8J9tS9y5vM for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81A7F28C126 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3383638E43 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id 1D65724300; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <D69914E05B16AC021650F34A@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> (message from Ian Eiloart on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:39:55 +0100)
References: <4A43B696.2000106@cybernothing.org> <4A449A7C.6070106@tana.it> <20090626100736.GA29159@gsp.org> <9088C3969464C4F82C833994@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <20090626141149.CDEEF24300@panix5.panix.com> <D69914E05B16AC021650F34A@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <20090626144255.1D65724300@panix5.panix.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-criteria (was Re: request for review for a non FUSSP proposal)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:42:54 -0000

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
> --On 26 June 2009 10:11:49 -0400 Seth <sethb@panix.com> wrote:
>> Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I don't like that definition. Specifically it misses an
>>> important class of spam - well targeted, individualised, unsolicited
>>> marketing messages which are necessarily unique (and hence not
>>> bulk).
>>
>> What makes them unique?  If the individualisation is merely a mail
>> merge, they're still bulk.  If the salescritter spent an hour
>> investigating me in order to determine that I'm a good prospect and
>> figure out the best way to entice me, the problem scales just fine.
>
> And how would I, as a recipient, know which had happened? How would
> I know whether to report the message as spam?

If it isn't apparent from the message itself, you probably shouldn't
be on the net without adult supervision.

Seth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email