Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:26:34 -0800

Like Justice Potter-Stewart's definition of pornography most of us "know it
when we see it". Unfortunately definitions of this type do not get us very
far when trying to instruct machines to reject spam or to prosecute court
cases.

One definition is:

"Spam is unsolicited mail that has forged headers, deceptive subject lines,
and has no opt out mechanism. This is exactly what is addressed in HR 95."

Unfortunately for the author the New York State courts did not agree with
this definition and found MosterHut and its owners Todd Pelow and Garry
Hartl to be guilty of deceptive trade practices.

It is important to recognize however that a definition that is useful for
one purpose may not be useful for all purposes. Legislation, particularly
legislation that has freedom of speech implications as anti-spam legislation
does has to be drawn very carefully so that the courts can apply it
objectively and impartially. As a result the definition of spam used in any
anti-spam law can only hope to define a subset of 'illegal-spam' and we must
accept that while all illegal spam is spam, some spam will not be illegal.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg