Subject: RE: [Asrg] Nucleus of a draft BCP on filtering

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:46:30 -0800

> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
> 
> > I think Keith is wrong here, the objective should be to get 
> rid of unwanted
> > email of any type. Decding what we call spam is beside the point.
> > ...
> 
> I strongly disagree.  We should not be worrying about all possible
> notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the

I think we should accept the fact that there are some types of spam
that we are not going to want to address.

I will update the definition:

"Any email sent indiscriminately that is unwanted by the recipient"

So this includes DJBs callback loop, out of office sent to mailing
lists, pretty much all UCE.

It does not automatically include information that might be 
indiscriminated but wanted. For example, if there was a major 
emergency incident in Boston, Cingular might send a warning message
to everyone with a RIM to not go there. It would be indiscriminate 
but in most cases the message would be wanted.

Of course these are human judgements and there will be an element
of fuzz in whatever comes out. We are not going to create a magic
bullet. However we can probably create a system that means that 
nobody can persist in sending spam for very long.

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:05:37 -0500

> that we are not going to want to address.

I think it's premature to start trying to prune the problem.  Our job
for now is to try to understand what is feasible.  If we find out that
it's infeasible to address all types of unwanted mail, so be it -
but let's not presume that (much less accept it as "the fact")

Keith