Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Problem Characterization - Defining spam within consent paradigm

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:53:44 -0400

At 04:42 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote:

>Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> > the bottom line is that any message that a human
> > receiver does not want - does not consent to, is
> > considering spam according to that person.
>         I don't buy it. Such a definition erases the distinctions
>between different kinds of unwanted messages and in so doing removes
>from discussion what may be useful information.
>         It may be "politically correct" to say that all unwanted mail is
>spam, however, I strongly believe that taking such a fundamentalist
>position is not conducive to the normally objective process of design.
>         If you force all "unwanted messages" into the single category of
>"spam" then you have either ignored existing distinctions or you have
>just declared "spam" to be synonymous with "unwanted message". Thus,
>your definition: "spam is any unwanted message" is simply a tautology.
>i.e. "Spam is Spam".

Well, I guess the bottom line is that we all agree that we disagree - 
everyone's definition of spam is different. But for the purposes of the 
consent framework do we even need to define spam? Or should we just provide 
the mechanisms and framework, and let each individual implementor, end-user 
and ISP decide on their definitions?

Yakov  

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