Subject: RE: [Asrg] Implicit Consent (was: Another criteria for "what is spam"...)

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:23:56 -0400

On Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:29 PM, Vernon Schryver 
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
8<...>8
> That is just as true of technical spam defenses as burglar alarms and
> the SEC's insider trading detection systems.  The techncial machinery
> can do a good job, but it can never be even as imperfect as we are
> (at least not until we have truely thinking and understanding computers).
> There will always be cases where the machinery gets it wrong, as well
> as cases where we can't agree on what's right.
>
> Insisting that the machinery be absolutely in-line with what we think
> is spam is equivalent to the obvious nonsense that false positives
> and false negatives will never happen.

That is precisely the issue.  Well put.  IMHO, it begs the question how will 
'impact acceptability' levels be characterized, e.g. branded, in a proposal?

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