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

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 23:02:08 -0400

Could you all and others please forward to me a brief definition of what 
criteria you would consider for spam.  I will attempt to conform the criteria 
and present that later to the list and as an addition to the requirements draft 
set of definitions.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:33 PM, Barry Shein [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
>   Spam is e-mail from a source which is hard to impossible for
>   the recipient to stop and/or reasonably prevent from receiving.
>
> I think the loss of control is very much at the heart of spam and many
> other attempts at definition dance around this somewhat.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:51 PM, Bill Cole [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> Spam is email which is sent without a well-founded belief on the part
> of the sender that he has the specific permission of the recipient to
> send that mail and which is substantially identical form to mail sent
> to multiple recipients.
>
> In short: unsolicited bulk email.

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:30 PM, Peter Kay [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> Here's mine:
>
> Spam is transmission of mass email without the prior explicit
> authorization of the recipient.

===Some of the prior input.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 2:18 AM, Brad Templeton [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> My current impression of the intersection definition is mail that is:
>
> 		    Sent as part of a mass mailing, which is to say some
> 			person commanded that mail be sent to more than
> 			a few hundred people
>
> 		    The recipient never solicited the mailing, nor has
> 			had voluntary contact with the sender in the past
>
> 		    Is commercial (Many people request this in the definition,
> 			but usually only if not including the mass mailing
> 			component, so this might not stay)
>
> 		    The sender has not been asked to stop mailing the
> 			recipient
>
> 		    If was not directly solicited (ie. is sent due to
> 			an existing relationship) the sender adheres to
> 			a reasonable and operational system to allow the
> 			recipient to ask not to be mailed again (See #4)

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:22 AM, David Walker [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using fake e-mail
> headers and/or underhanded techniques.
>
> Messages of a commercial or pseudo-commercial nature sent using legitimate
> techniques (no fake headers) or semi-legitimate techniques but sent to
> individuals who either opted out or never opted in to receiving mails from
> the sender.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:18 AM, Jon Kyme [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> Well (referring to the charter) how about:
> A communication for which there is no consent given by the intended
> recipient.

On Saturday, March 29, 2003 10:52 PM, Eric D. Williams [SMTP:[email-masked]] 
wrote:
8<...>8
> SPAM - 1. Messaging in the MTS which violates best current practices for MTA
> providers to assure proper canonical representation of it's originator. 2. A
> message that does not reflect accurate information for its originator or that
> is transmitted with simulated information nominally used to trace origination
> [that's a tight squeeze as it ignores incorrect configurations].  3) A 
message
> with fraudulent tracking information that is in fact flawed at origination to
> obfuscate its origin.
>
> SPAMMER - A user, company or other end entity that engages in introducing 
SPAM
> into the MTS.

On Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:38 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip 
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> 	Spam = Unwanted and indiscriminate messages
>
> Works fine here.

On Friday, April 04, 2003 8:55 AM, Jim Youll [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> 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.
>
> "(fill in precise language here)" - suitable plain language for a
> particular type of sender, message, measurement or other thing
> related to the spam problem... one example would be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail from strangers" which can be packed into 'UCE' when
> appropriate. "Spammer" is appropriate when referring to a generic
> class. "Stock scammer" would be more specific.

-e

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

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 06:26:31 -0400

> ... brief definition of what criteria you would consider ...

One is data collection practices. The collection of idendifier data.
Retention, purpose, access, etc., all follow.

Eric

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:51:38 -0400

"Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]> wrote:

 > Could you all and others please forward to me a brief definition of
 > what criteria you would consider for spam.

Short and sour: Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE).  To make a short story 
long:

- If it's solicited, it's certainly not spam.

- If it's not bulk, each one may be annoying, but at least it's not 
annoying as many people.  B-)  More to the point, if it's "lovingly 
handcrafted" Just For You, there are only so many people the sender can 
spare the time to bother with.  Therefore they almost certainly have a 
well-founded belief that you (as a specific individual, not a member of 
some demographic) would welcome it.  Therefore they are at least able to 
explain why.  They certainly should, so as to avoid being viewed (and 
reported) as spammers.  (Take the "same text to a bunch of different 
experts to ask them something for your thesis" scenario.  Send each 
expert a separate email.  Preface the question with how you legitimately 
obtained the expert's email.  Add some flattery re why his particular 
work makes him well suited to answer your question.  This would neither 
be (IMHO) spam, nor seem spammy, even though the main content is the 
same in several different messages.)

- If it's not email (such as snailmail, phone, or SMS), it may still be 
annoying, but should probably be considered as a separate problem.

- Some would say it must be commercial.  As someone else said, I've 
gotten religious, political, "come look at my k00l web site", and other 
forms of spam.

- Some would ask whether the headers (or other info, such as removal 
address) are faked.  Although a lot of UBE does have fakery, much of it 
also does not.  This sort of fraud is IMHO another separate question.

To contrast with UCE, consider this scenario.  I'm in a group called the 
SCA.  I participate in its newsgroup, rec.org.sca.  The SCA has a major 
annual event called Pennsic, to which I've been many times but have had 
to miss the past few.  If someone sent me:

 > Going to Pennsic?  Stop by Honest Achmed's, in the Food
 > Court.  Mention this email for a free felafel sandwich
 > and cup of sekanjabin.

I'd assume he simply harvested me from r.o.s and report him as a spammer.  
Note how he's treating me as part of a demographic, not an individual.  
BUT, if he sent me:

 > I see from your web site you're in the SCA, and have gone to
 > Pennsic many times but had to miss the past few.  I hope you
 > get a job soon, so you can afford to go, and one that will
 > let you go!  When you finally make it, stop by Honest
 > Achmed's, in the Food Court.  Mention this email for a free
 > felafel sandwich and cup of sekanjabin, so you can see what
 > you've been missing for the past two years.

I would not consider it spam, due to the references to things that are 
fairly specific to me.  Sure, it's possible that he's got a list of such 
people (and thus might be caught by quantity detectors), but still....

-- 
David J. Aronson, Unemployed Software Engineer near Washington DC
See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, and other info

---

From: Alberto França <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:55:32 -0300

What differentiates spam from any other e-mail I receive is its 
*irritating* characteristics which happens due to 2 things:

- repetitive nature
- content not interesting to me

If either one of the two things above is not present, then it doesn't 
bother me. Only when the 2 characteristics are present, then I consider 
it to be spam.

As such, my definition of spam is:

Spam = annoying message due to repetitive nature and uninteresting content.

Alberto Fraanca

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 19:23:00 -0400

At this point if we could just get rid of the spamming which is best
characterized by its illegal/gray-area behavior I suspect the problem
would become much more manageable even if not completely solved.

That's one PR problem with all this, the more we focus on the message
(email whose contents I don't want) the more we're opening ourselves
to accusations of just being anti-commercial zealots.

Who can argue with something like:

ALTHOUGH spam covers a wider set of unwanted email it is certainly
(bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable methods
to ensure its delivery including but not limited to:

    a) Exploitation of open relays and proxies for transmission.

    b) Forged and often purposely misleading header information.

    c) Creation and use of computer viruses for transmission.

    d) Encoding of the message and header information with the intent
    to deceive filters and/or recipients.

    e) Inclusion of phony removal and/or affiliation information.

    f) Highly inappropriate demography (e.g. sending explicit material
    to children, making no attempt to prevent that.)

    g) Misleading and deceitful subject and other presentation
    lines designed to trick someone into opening the mail.

    h) Obscuring any possibility of identification of the sender
    and/or beneficiaries of the mail.

etc.

I PURPOSELY DIDN'T CRAFT THAT to be finely-honed language so don't
start objecting that you see holes in some of the wording w/o further
clarification, of course, not my point.

I just wanted to keep it short and easy to consider, designed for
knowledgeable colleagues, not hostile skeptics.

MY POINT IS, a list like that is easy for legislators, the media, etc
to get behind and difficult for a so-called white-hat bulk mailer to
quibble with in contrast to definitions which focus on the
repetitious, unsolicited, promotional nature of spam. The latter make
spam sound like a lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising.

Obviously it'd be important to stress that this is just a first step
trying to deal with the worst of the problem and not intended to be
exhaustive.

Finally, and frankly, I think if we could just accomplish that much
we'd put the majority of the real dirtbags out of business, and then
can tune further. They can't tolerate accountability of any sort.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [email-masked]           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:29:21 -0400

At 07:23 PM 6/4/2003 -0400, Barry Shein wrote:

>[..]

Would you nevertheless agree that UBE that is not sent using "llegal and/or 
ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <[email-masked]>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 22:12:22 -0400

> ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam?

Of course, this is just the worst and most urgent subset, in my
opinion.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:28:38 -0400

> to accusations of just being anti-commercial zealots.

Even "email whose contents I don't want" isn't just commercial.  Have you 
never gotten religious spam?  I've gotten a dozen or two.

 > (bulk) email which uses illegal and/or ethically questionable methods

I can argue with it.  Focus too much on that sort, and the folks who are 
raring to spam but would use "legit" methods, will feel free.  As 
someone pointed out, if every business sent you one email a year, you'd 
get almost 8000 a day.  IIRC, that's even after assorted qualifiers, 
like making it USA-based only, and knocking out the ones that probably 
don't have any Internet access.  Even if he's overstating by two whole 
orders of magnitude, 80 spams a day is way too much.  Even 8 spams a day 
is an annoyance.

 > spam sound like a lot of other annoying-but-tolerated advertising.

There are vast differences that can be pointed out.  There's the way that 
the other forms don't steal our resources, don't prevent us from seeing 
other important messages, etc.  The only stuff that comes even close are 
billboards that blot out scenic views, telemarketers who call at bad 
times or fill up our answering machines, and large snailmail "circulars" 
that can trap normal mail so that we don't see the normal mail when we 
toss out the circular.  Lots of people used to rage about the first, 
they still do about the second, and some are starting to rage about the 
third.

---

From: Barry Shein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:09:45 -0400

> ethically questionable methods" would still be considered spam?

But of course, and I'd go further and say that's still a small subset
because create a static-free, approved channel to literally hundreds
of millions of eyeballs and you'll see the "U" in "UBE" stretched like
a yoga convention.

-- 
        -Barry Shein