Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Asrg] define spam

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:30:12 -0500

On Monday, March 31, 2003 3:49 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
> > Besides that, I think in your last sentence you are describing
> > a policy enforcement mechanism based upon a precise (or im-precise,
> > or subjective) definition of a 'class' of messages.
> >
>
> Yes, kind of. A mechanism has to rely on the classification tools available
> at the classifying entity.  This allows for a universal definition
> in terms of local classifications, and avoids the (probably impossible)
> question of how to create a single universal definition of a "spam
> message".
>
> Given a few terms universally accepted ("acceptable", "unacceptable",
> "neither") and classification "engines" which need not be well-known,
> transparent or
> reliable.
> You can get classifications like:
> "messages classified as unacceptable by
> billy-bigarms-patent-spam-detector".
>  "messages with senders on the recipients blacklist"
>  "messages originating-from-smtp-client-ip(10.0.2.3)"
> etc...
>
> Obviously, enforcement can only be performed by entities with access to the
> engines specified.  This is a "good thing".

I agree.  So is there consensus here on the idea that enforcement make take 
many forms that are based on the principle of an identifiable construction 
(class) against which the policy may be applied/checked?

> > >
> > > Classification of a message is not impossible.
> > > (There are many deployed systems that do this with varying degrees of
> > > "accuracy") Expression of a subjects preferences is not beyond us.
> > >
> > > We don't need to define spam. All we will ever need to do is say that
> > >
> > > "this set of message classes does | doesn't have consent for delivery
> > to
> > > this subject."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --

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