Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...

From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 21:04:02 -1000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] Another criteria for "what is spam"...
> 
> > From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
> 
> > ...
> > Spam is defined as unsolicited bulk email
> >
> > Bulk email is defined as the transmission of 2 or more emails via a
> > primarily automated process.
> >
> > Unsolicited email is defined as email where the recipient has not
> > implicitly or explicitly approved of receiving email from the
sender.
> >
> > Sender can mean an individual or an organization.
> >
> > A recipient implicitly approves of receiving email from a given
sender
> > if the recipient has previously sent email to the sender and the
> > recipient has not explicitly requested to not receive further email
from
> > the sender.
> 
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[email-masked]]
> I'm sorry, but I find that last paragraph very wrong.  Silence in the
> face of spam is never consent to more spam!
> 

I tried to word that paragraph carefully but probably stumbled. Either
that or you missed the "and". What I'm saying in that last paragraph is
that if I've sent you email before AND I've not explicitly asked not to
receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving
email from you.  

> Consent to unsolicited bulk email must always be explicit and precede
> first message.  

Agreed.  my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not
"ube".

> It does not matter how the consent is expressed,
> whether by a proper mailing list subscription including confirmation
> or some other message.  It does matter that spam is spam even it
> claims "There is no need to unsubscribe since this is a one-time
mailing."
> (That phrase was once very common in spam.  It's more common now )
> 

agreed and the above does not contradict that.

> Other bits of that definition are objectionable because they are
> distracting and irrelevant.  It does not matter whether an
advertisement
> is sent in batch of 1000 or if the energetic and desperate salesperson
> addressed and "targeted" each copy manually and so doesn't manage to
> send more than 5000 before running out of time to "make quota."
> 

if you can define "bulk" to handle that case I'm all for it.

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

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:30:38 -0600 (MDT)

> receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving

No, it was my mistake.  I didn't see who sent the initial mail to
whom.  However, while I'm not outraged by what you really wrote as
was by what I thought I read, I still don't agree.  A public address
that does not imply implicit consent to receive mail that is not "spam"
(whatever the definition) is nonsensical.  

> Agreed.  my definition above was about the word "implicit" only, not

I don't understand.  If a published mail address (e.g. in an ISP's
user directory) does not implicitly give permission for non-bulk mail
then, what's the point of publishing the address?

Or do you mean that sending a mail message amounts to publishing it?

> > distracting and irrelevant.  It does not matter whether an advertisement

Again, "bulk" should be defined just as fuzzily as "malice" is defined
for "burglary" when in an ISP "court" deciding whether an account
should be terminated.  Computers are obliged to define "bulk" with a
number, but we can use a sane definition that lets me send you an
unsolicited question about your C/R system with a copy to the mailing
list.  There is no conflict, just as there is no conflict between
burglar alarms using a simplistic definition for detecting burglary
of "anyone here no matter who or why" and courts using a fuzzy definition
of "without authorization and with malice" for conviction.

Your anti-spam defenses might detect my unsolicited question with a
copy to this list as bulk as well as unsolicited, but that's just
life.  If you have legitimate dealings in buildings with burglar
alarms, you must take precautions to avoid setting them off, and that's
also just life.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 01:57:25 -0400

On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 09:04:02PM -1000, Peter Kay wrote

> receive email from you anymore, THEN I'm implicitly approving receiving

  This reminds me of articles on some of the direct-marketing sites...
The first couple of paragraphs define confirmed opt-in, which everybody
agrees with.  The remaining 95% of the article tap-dances to a
pre-determined conclusion that if you click your heels and dance around
a faerie ring widdershins, then you can send advertising to people who
didn't ask for it, and it's *NOT* "really" spam.  This attitude on the
part of corporations that holds back e-commerce.  People are afraid of
ending up on lists each time they buy something online, so they don't
buy online.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg