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

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:31:27 -0800

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.

In particular I really believe that the stuff Bernstein and SpamArrest puke
out through their spambots requesting a confirmation of each email you send
them IS SPAM. I want to have a definition of spam that makes it very clear
that people who reduce the amount of spam they get by increasing the amount
of spam I get are not proposing an acceptable solution.

Another problem with the UCE moniker is that a huge fraction (60% at least)
of the spam I get is not commercial, it is outright fraud. Nigerian letters
are not commercial solicitations, they are outright attempts at fraud
perpetrated by people who are kidnappers, murderers and theives.

	Phill

> > Guiding General Principles: - spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> >that way, we wouldn't all have to agree on what spam was.
> 
> >Keith
> 
>  ----- I finally agree with something Keith said.. hmm.
>  
>  I believe that my previous statement still holds true- Spam 
> is in the eye
> of the beholder.
> 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:19:02 -0500

> 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.

actually, I agree with the above statement - so I'm not sure why you
think I'm wrong.

> In particular I really believe that the stuff Bernstein and SpamArrest
> puke out through their spambots requesting a confirmation of each
> email you send them IS SPAM. 

it's fine with me if you declare it spam for your purposes, as long as
you don't insist that it be spam for everyone else's purposes.

> I want to have a definition of spam that
> makes it very clear that people who reduce the amount of spam they get
> by increasing the amount of spam I get are not proposing an acceptable
> solution.

actually I suspect we're better off not trying to define spam at all,
because I don't think we're going to all agree on a meaning,
and use of the word just seems to promote misunderstanding.  instead,
let's talk about more precise mail categories that people might choose
to permit or discourage without presuming that everyone will pick the
same criteria.

Keith

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:26:38 -0700 (MST)

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

> ...

I strongly disagree.  We should not be worrying about all possible
notions of unwanted email, but only about email that damages the
system, either technically or otherwise, such as by making mail less
useful to users.  Communications from ex-spouses and creditors is
often unwanted, but does not harm the system.  Only bulk mail 
can harm the system.

It is not that it is impossible to consider mechanisms to deal with
broader classes of unwanted email, but that goals with well defined
limits are vital for success in any design effort.

Besides, mechanisms to deal with unwanted mail that is not bulk are
well established and very widely available.  Most of the so called
spam filters offered by ISPs are suitable for rejecting mail from
creditors and ex-spouses.

If the mechanisms for dealing with unwanted bulk mail turn out to also
be effective against other kinds of unwanted mail, then fine.  Dealing
with dumb jokes from your mother-in-law should not be a goal here.

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