Subject: Re: [Asrg] define spam

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:55:35 +0000

>> >Hmmn.  Is this message spam?  I don't have any consent from you on
>> >file.
>>
>> The message of of itself fits the definition. However, it has a context
>(is
>> part of an ongoing communication with a list - and within the declared
>> ambit of the list) such that it's probably not reasonable to consider it
>> "spam".
>
>
>I find it hard to think of any circumstance where it's useful to consider
>a one-to-one message to be spam.  It may be annoying for some other
>reason, but without bulk, there's no spam problem.
>

I'm the naked man in a glass room - I have no way of knowing how many
recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed?

Next!

--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:03:12 +0000

>naked man ? glass room ?

That last glass of wine may have been too much - 

apologies.

---

From: Brad Templeton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:44:40 -0800

> recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed?

Really?   I must say I have the exact opposite experience.  Almost never
to I get a spam that I can't immediately identify that it was not written
personally for me.   That alone of course doesn't prove that it's bulk
but it's a remarkably accurate indicator.

If you are building a bulk detector to prove bulk (for example to enforce
a legal regime) the next step is fairly obvious -- forward any messages
you get which _look_ to your fairly accurate intuition as bulk to a common
spot, where messages that meet similarity metrics can easily be pooled for
confirmation.

Of course, that's only if you want to do things based on individual action.
Clearly the mail servers for a large body of users can detect bulk the old
fashioned way, but getting multiple messages.  Brightmail has hundreds of
thousands of spamtraps, and detects bulk that way (but also just uses the
old fashioned human inspection trick on messages that come to the traps too)

And as I have proposed, a set of MXs representing millions of users and pooling
data can easily detect bulk by simply looking at delivery volume from network
blocks, no need to even look at the content.   

To my mind, trying to figure if a message was written for me, or is part of
a mass mailing, is remarkably easy and accurate.  I would be curious to hear
if others have had trouble doing so as Mr. Kyme appears to report.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Mar 2003 22:32:33 -0500

> recipients the message has. I can never know I've been spammed?

Of course you can.  It doesn't take much intelligence to tell an actual
individual message from a human from faux personalized junk mail.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:55:14 -0500

>individual message from a human from faux personalized junk mail.

Exhibit 1.

A message asking to be added to my mailing list.  Spam was simply the 
URL in the .signature.  I would have fallen for it but they went a 
touch too far and included a picture as well.

Exhibit 2.

A message to abuse complaining about spam.  The spam was the message 
that they were "complaining" about.

Exhibit 3.

Message asking me to attend a conference.  (You've probably seen these.)
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/        Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Mar 2003 00:24:10 -0500

> touch too far and included a picture as well.

Did they actually want to get on your list, or was the return address a
fake?  I've seen some pretty egregious wallpaper in legit mail.

> that they were "complaining" about.

Seen some of those, never had much trouble figuring them out.

> Message asking me to attend a conference.  (You've probably seen these.)

Indeed.  They struck me as instantly spamous because of the lack of any
plausible reason they'd invite me.  (I may be famous, but I'm not THAT
famous.)

I can certainly imagine situations where spam could masquerade as
individual messages well enough to fool some people, but I don't see that
as a big problem.  So long as most of the recipients can figure out that
it's spam, any negative feedback scheme we invent will still work.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:28:08 +0100

> but it's a remarkably accurate indicator.

Brad, there's a question mark at the end there.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear - it's now the morning and the coffee
is starting to kick in.

My point was that I don't need a measure of bulkiness to (personally)
categorise a message as spam. And neither do you. We're in agreement on
this.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:11:06 -0700 (MST)

> From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>

> ...

Yes.
The fact each of us has probably been fooled once, twice, three or
even more times does not change the fact that anyone and everyone who
should be allowed an unsupervised mail account can and does bulk mail
from single, isolated samples with better than 99.9% accuracy.

The famous legal saying that hard cases make bad law applies to laws
against spam as well as technical defenses.  It is a major mistake to
try to make laws or computers against spam absolutely perfect.   Any
law or computer defense that even approaches being a perfect spam
filter has catatrophic unintended consequences.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg