IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Fri, 26 June 2009 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 531F428C0F1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.128
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.328, 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 aCFGkROmvQTN for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk (karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C583A6AEA for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:63517) by karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KLUORY-00085O-DE for asrg@irtf.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:46 +0100
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:39:55 +0100
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <D69914E05B16AC021650F34A@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090626141149.CDEEF24300@panix5.panix.com>
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>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01hnOHtu/U9RvH4NsY8pn56Pop7OuoEOmZ+94=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
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 14:39:52 -0000

--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?

> Seth
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email