Subject: RE: [Asrg] [ASRG]Other Ideas?

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:39:04 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>
> 
> I believe that it is possible to describe the *problems* that we are 
> trying to solve without discussing spam or consent.  There are 
> slightly different sets of problems for ISPs vs. end-users.  And for 
> personal accounts vs. business.  And a number of these problems (e.g. 
> massive numbers of bounces) are not solely caused by spam.  Given a 
> description of the problems, then it should be possible to look at 
> proposed solutions and determine which part of the space they solve 
> and which they don't.  That would (in theory) bypass the whole issue 
> of definitions and consent.  Particular *solutions* certainly may 
> require defining consent.  But I don't believe that describing the 
> problem space requires it.

Kee, Please see the 'inventory of problems' document that was distributed.
(I just resent it to the list.) Please work with

All: As far as defining spam, we have defined spam as unwanted messages.
Please see the early discussions for more clarification. Each entity may
define what messages are unwanted. An alternate and more limiting definition
of spam that has been used can be found at
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/definition.shtml: "Internet spam is one
or more unsolicited 1 messages, sent or posted as part of a larger
collection 2 of messages, all having substantially identical content."  This
covers a majority of what many people consider spam. However, this also
leaves room for some false positives and false negatives. People have
debated the perfect definition of spam for years; that is not why we are
here. Above are two good, but different definitions. As a group we will aim
to develop solutions that allow entities to control 'unwanted messages'.
Individual solutions that are proposed here may target subsets of unwanted
messages. Therefore, an individual solution may target the more precise
definition of spam stated above.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Apr 2003 08:47:16 -0500

In <[email-masked]> Paul Judge <[email-masked]> writes:

>                                    An alternate and more limiting definition
> http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/definition.shtml  "Internet spam is one
> covers a majority of what many people consider spam.

I would encourage other people to sign onto the definition of spam at
monkeys.com.  It isn't my ideal definiton of spam, but it is pretty
close and there are already some very recognizable names on the list
of signatories.  More would be better.

-wayne

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:06:49 -0400

At 8:47 -0500 4/11/03, wayne wrote:
>In <[email-masked]> 
>Paul Judge <[email-masked]> writes:
>

Sorry, but I will not sign this. It's a pretty naive definition. The 
simple fact of prox. 12 linear feet of footnotes betrays the problem.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:30:07 -0600 (MDT)

> From: wayne <[email-masked]>

> > collection 2 of messages, all having substantially identical content." ...

> of signatories.  More would be better.

As far as I can tell, that definition is a very verbose way to say
"unsolicited bulk mail."  As such, I do not like it except as an
explanation or exposition of "UBE."  I think UBE is the only definition
of "spam" that covers a problem that the IETF/IRTF could or should
address, but verbose definitions cause problems in the long run.  In
the short run, they cause confusion and let people to think they agee
when they don't.

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

---

From: Alberto França <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:24:38 -0300

Spam = annoying message due to repetitive nature and uninteresting content