Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consent

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:44:26 -0800

While ignoring the deliberate forgery troll I think we haveto be carefull
using consent to define spam.

The problem as I see it is that this ends up substituting one ill defined
term for another.

I don't think we should try to come to a mechanistic definition of consent.
After all there are plenty of disareements here. I may think X consented
because a box was clicked. They may think otherwise because they never saw
it.

I think the test needs to be meaningfull consent. So the weasel consent of
spam semders counteth not.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vernon Schryver
Sent:	Thu Apr 03 15:49:46 2003
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Asrg] Consent

> From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>

> I think it follows from this argument that the appropriate definition 
> of spam is  very simple.  Harassment.  That's why I asked a while 
> back on this list whether harassment law and restraining orders (both 
> of which are based to a certain degree on the perceptions of the 
> recipient) might not be the best model.

Doesn't harassment require some sort of repetition and some kind of
obnoxiousness, threat, or other objectionable quality? 
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=harassment says
it means "to annoy persistently."  
http://www.safetyed.org/help/stalking/stalkusa.html and the rest of
http://www.google.com/search?q=harassment+legal
seem to suggest some notion of repetition is involved.

Would one polite, short, unsolicited bulk email message every 6 months
be seen as harassment by a court or other sane authority?--I doubt it. 

How many individuals and organizations in the world might reasonably
send you an annual reminder of their existence and request for
permission to send more mail?  How many bulk unsolicited non-harresmment
email messages would you like in your mailbox daily?

It is counter-productive to take with interesting connotations and
then pretend that their definitions are whatever is convenient.  This
is as true of calling the use of surprising mail return addresses
"forgery" as would be of squeezing "spam" into a "harrassment" box.

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