Subject: RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

From: "Book, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:54:48 -0400

I would think it fairly evident that spam is in the eye of the
beholder. I suspect that a popular resolution would, therefore, need to
provide the receiver with control over the type of information allowed
through a personal filter. This could be implemented by defining a key field
with a range of values and refinements universally understood by all email
packages. For instance, if an email header were read to determine that it
contained an advertisement of a product within a specific product line and
the email client could be optioned by the receiver as to the desired
disposition of an email (to include sending  it directly to the bit bucket)
with that classification, the receiver is given control and, so long as the
system is honored by the senders of the email, minimal umbrage on the part
of the receivers of email. Spam might then be redefined as email which did
not follow the classification convention.
	The possibility remains, however, that this solution might not be
popular with the people in the business of producing such advertisements. I
seem to recall, from a time when I was living in Europe, the VCRs over there
had the capability to key off of a signal in the broadcast signal. This
"off" signal, and it's corresponding "on" signal, were sent, respectively,
before and after commercial messages. I have yet to see that feature in any
VCRs in the US market. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert G. Ferrell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 11:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail 

> It is also impossible to differentiate between so-called
> spam and expressions of a personal political, social or
> artistic nature. 

Herein lies one of the major issues that ought to be sorted out before 
anyone takes any steps to regulate spam.  What is spam, exactly?  There
seems  
to be a wide variety of notions as to what constitutes a spam.  Some 
people define it in its original context; i.e., unsolicited commercial 
email.  Others broaden the definition to include offensive or off-topic 
remarks on a public or private list.  Still others would include *any* email

they didn't want to receive as 'spam.'  It would be extremely challenging
and 
largely useless to attempt to regulate what you can't even categorize,
methinks.

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================

---

From: Dennis Glatting <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:03:42 -0700 (PDT)

> not follow the classification convention.

Simply because one chooses to be on the Internet, surely is not required
one to incur the cost of others' business methods. If one (the receiver)
pays network costs and one does not wish to receive UCE, then why should
one incur any cost (bandwidth usage, registration, whatever) of receiving
UCE even to reject it?

-dpg

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:04:05 +0100 (BST)

[spamspamspam]
> VCRs in the US market. :-)

http://pdc.ro.nu/
has some sketchy protocol details.

I don't think the pause feature is either popular or currently
used, although 'start recording' is widespread.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>