Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:58:03 -0500

All;

There is a simple reason for trying to 'define spam' in the context of this 
group.  It is not related to anything to be construed as a 'globally' 
acceptable definition per se.  It is merely intended to be a tool for, 
ostensibly, our use in evaluation of the proposals.  IMHO, we should focus on 
such a solution for a definition.  It will not be worthwhile, I think, to 
continue in debate on a less precise definition.  In some cases the definition 
describes the 'scope' of a problem and uses that to develop a solution 
(reduction of impact, scope, etc.), in others a precise term has been used to 
identify a problem and formulate a solution to eradicate the defined object.

In this case we should try to define 'it' in one of those two ways so that the 
effect of a proposed solution can be measured objectively by the group for 
research purposes, and tested in interoperable implementations developed 
(nominally) outside of the group (in the IETF) [RFC2014, BCP8].

On Friday, April 04, 2003 10:05 AM, Brad Spencer 
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
> At 08:54 AM 4/4/2003 -0500, Jim Youll wrote:
>
> >I suggest, but nobody will listen:
> >
> >"Spam" - a generic term for a problem in electronic mail whereby people
> >are receiving messages that they don't want to receive, and can't stop.
> >The "spam problem" is very simply about the right to be left alone.

I agree that this is the effect of 'it'.

8<...>8 Why is it necessary to have the definition be completely
> precise?   I repeat that the ASRG goal isn't the drafting of the definitive
> anti-spam law with the definitive anti-spam definition.  More properly time
> could be spent on sub-definitions: if you stop email on the basis of a
> sub-definition then you stop spam.  My sub-definition is any non-test
> message that is trapped in my relay spam honeypot.  Another sub-definition
> is "whatever email originates in Ronnie Scelson's IP space is spam."  Who
> has shown an overriding need for a full definition?

I agree, I do not think we should or are attempting to come up with a single 
layer definition, so the sub-definition idea works for me.  Again, it is merely 
a portion of the definition that is more precise or definitive for the problem 
being experienced.  This does not mean, as you rightly point out by using the 
modifier 'sub', multiple definitions - but I think we can come up with a 
taxonomy for 'it' that will accommodate those 'sub' categories.  The full 
definition is the appropriate taxonomy IMHO.

> If this were an emergency group set up to fight a fire that was threatening
> the entire East cost of the USA little time would be spent on defining
> fire.  The stakes aren't as high but the situation is similar: a massive
> problem exists that needs action taken to deal with that massive problem.

The only problem I perceive with that logic is that we are dealing with how for 
the most part technological solutions will deal with the problem.  In the case 
of fire, if you were using a robotic fire engineer, you would indeed have to 
'define fire' for the machine, but not the people who are being burnt.  I think 
that would be a more appropriate way to consider this definition thing.

8<...>8

Regard,

-e

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

---

From: Brad Spencer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 12:18:11 -0600

>(nominally) outside of the group (in the IETF) [RFC2014, BCP8].

Yes, but that's why I favor sub-definitions.  The Venn diagram would show 
sub-definitions mostly covering the entire class of "spam", with some 
sub-definitions disjoint, others overlapping.  If there's a sub-definition 
that associates well with a specific method of fighting spam then I'd think 
the evaluation of that method would be based on its effectiveness for that 
sub-class of spam, not on how well it worked on spam as a whole.  I'm 
assuming the possibility that the ASRG solution won't be unitary, that it 
could be a combination of approaches. If a unitary solution is found the 
discovery will be (perhaps) made by observing that the associated 
definition covers all spam and that the method is effective against the 
entire sub-class of spam associated with the method.  Rather than first 
setting the difficult goal of finding a master spam definition and then 
finding a method that works against all that spam the approach would be to 
identify subclasses of spam that have anti-spam measures associated 
with  them.

Split the problem into parts, deal with each part, solve the problem in pieces.

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 22:16:30 +0100

> continue in debate on a less precise definition. 

I don't believe that a definition of spam (other than the one negated in
the neat generalisation in the charter) will be agreed on by the group. Any
effort expended on a wild goose chase pursuing this red herring up a blind
alley will be wasted.

"No thanks, we've got one."
For the purposes of this group "spam" is "non-consent-based communication".
Some forms of NCBC (ha!) will be less objectionable than others - if we
need to define sub-categories
(UCE, UBE etc) let's do that.

Perhaps we need a agreed nomenclature - fine - suggestions?

--