Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through

From: Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:48:58 -0700

At 12:01 PM 7/20/03 -0700, Mark Ferguson wrote:
...>
>I attempted to actually give a real world definition to spam a while
>back and it was met with both negative and positive reviews.
>

This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms 
to express consent.  

Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic
for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic.

However, if anyone would like an ear full about why their particular
definition of spam is completely and utterly wrong, useless, 
and harmful to the internet community in general, I'd be happy
to oblige them /off list/.   And no, it doesn't matter what your
definition is, I'm sure I can provide several paragraphs of
argument against it regardless.

Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>

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

---

From: "Danny Angus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:15:34 +0100

> This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms

Well, not if you read the website:
"The purpose of the ASRG is to understand the problem and collectively
propose and evaluate solutions to the problem."

> for this group, it's /expressly/ off topic.

I agree that this has been decided, however I'd also draw your attention to
the website where it also says:

"The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted
email messages, loosely referred to as spam"

From which we must assume that this group exists to research the _whole_ of
the problem not only from the POV of what is practically possible, but also
from the POV of identifying what is and isn't within the scope of the
problem.

The problem I keep seeing here is that there are many facets to this broad
definition, and individual participants generally have particular needs that
reflect only a few of these, so that the situation arises where well meaning
people attempt to steer the whole of the discussion into a single channel of
thought.

I don't believe it is necessary or productive to define spam more closely
than the mission statement, nor to attempt to find a single silver bullet
for what is in fact only a collection of loosely related problems.

d.

---

From: C Wegrzyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:00:43 -0400

I might suggest that before this conversation takes off it would be 
better to read the archives. Every once in a while some one attempts a 
stab at the definition, and we all get to the same point.

A clear, simple definition just isn't possible.

Chuck Wegrzyn