Subject: [Asrg] (no subject)

From: "Paul Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 20:19:08 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Devdas Bhagat
..
> > No ... spam is subjective.  Formaly deciding what is or is 
> not spam is 
> > the wrong way to proceed.
> 
> The objective definition of spam is Unsolicited Bulk Messaging.
> Spam is not about content, it's about consent.

So what?  The consent depends on the content and the originator.  
There is nothing else to measure or examine.

> And you trust the creator on what basis? We already have 
> spammers spoofing headers, so can you tell me why they will 
> not spoof the tags?

My post clearly listed digital signatures as a mechanism. 

> 
> One rather well known way of tagging the message is to use 
> GPG/PGP or S/MIME signatures.
> If the signature validates, you know the mail came from 
> someone with access to the private key, presumably the owner 
> of the key.
> 
> We all know how well that is working out.

So what... I was not describing PGP or S/MIME.

Do you have a useful contribution to make by these comments?

Paul

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