Subject: RE: [Asrg] FW: Your email requires verification verify#DzSXey5Ib5 bYxjdNkwIJu 3jkHCbIESbz

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:33:44 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of william(at)elan.net

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, der Mouse wrote:
> 
> > > I hereby nominate downtownweb.com for the clueless dweeb 2004 
> > > awards.
> > 
> > I second the nomination.
> 
> Oh, come on - there are worth examples then that, like take 
> for example those who set their autoreply messages to go to 
> [email-masked] mail list!

Which is why I have always wanted a definition of spam that looks at the
problem from the user's perspective. If the recipient does not want it and
the receiver should have realized that it was not going to be wanted then it
should be eliminated if practical.

One cause of spam is the bad guys but another cause is all the ad hoc
schemes that folk have set up for a variety of purposes that ends up sending
folk mail that is simply unnecessary. For example the folk in this newsgroup
who used to set their mail servers so that every email sent to them from
someone they disagreed with was reported to DCC as spam and then sent a
reject note out to them. [Spam and troll in one move]. The anti-virus
bounces are another example, vacation notices etc.

Its not enough to simply say the fault lies with X for not following the
standard. Companies do what they do for good commercial reasons. Why is the
standard not being followed? What is the institutional failure? What is the
remedy?

	Phill

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