Subject: 4.d. mapping personal definitions of spam to the consent framewor k (was RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through)

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:29:32 -0400

You're right.

Additionally, let's nip this topic in the bud before it goes any further.

Below is a copy of a message that I sent to the list about a month ago. It
seems that every month or so, the 'definition of spam' conversation comes
up. Therefore, it is worthwhile to revisit the view of how these personal
definitions of spam are encompassed by the consent framework.

A useful conversation at this point is how do we need to further define the
consent framework to achieve this goal. The current draft that has been put
forth can be found at:
http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-consent-framework.html

-- begin original message from
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05307.html
--
This topic has been debated on this mailing list at least three times. Each
time the debate goes on for days. After a while, we reach consensus but have
gained no ground.

Please read this carefully from the charter: 

"The Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) focuses on the problem of unwanted
email messages,"

"The definition of spam messages is not clear and is not consistent across
different individuals or organizations. Therefore, we generalize the problem
into "consent-based communication". This means that an individual or
organization should be able to express consent or lack of consent for
certain communication and have the architecture support those desires."

We could debate the meaning of spam forever. The point here is to generalize
to a problem of unwanted communication. This can be framed into a problem of
consent-based communication. This allows anyone's interpretation of 'spam'
to be expressed and enforced. For example, if someone decides on the
definition of 'unsolicited bulk email', this can be expressed and enforced.
Additionally, a particular solution may focus on preventing or detecting a
certain type of communication. For example, one proposal focuses only on
detecting bulk email. Another proposal focuses on detecting solicited email.
A different proposal focuses on detecting email with authentic path and
sender information. All of these different proposals form part of a
consent-based communication system.

As a solution is proposed, it should state the classes or types of unwanted
messages that it will be effective against. With proper measurement and
characterization work, we should be able to understand what percentage of
the current spam volume that describes. Additionally, the system must state
the assumptions upon which it is based. This allows analysis of the
robustness of the system in the face of countermeasures that may reverse
these assumptions.
-end original message-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Requirements - Non Spam must go through
> 
> 
> 
> > This avowed purpose of this group is researching mechanisms 
> to express 
> > consent.
> 
> 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."
> 
> > Attempting to discuss definitions of spam isn't just off topic 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 

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