Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:54:17 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Allen" <allen@easytospell.com>, "Bill Moran" <wmoran@iowna.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: [OT] Spam from Windriver - how should I react? Message-ID: <001d01c0fc82$dec25680$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010623171922.00db1f18@pop.easytospell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is one of the worse ones I've seen. It has several holes in it: "...Internet spam is one or more messages, sent or posted as part of a larger collection 1 of unsolicited 2 messages, all having substantially identical content..." He actually noticed this and attempted to fix it with the following footnote: "... Any number of messages, greater than or equal to two (2), which are both unsolicited and which have substantially identical content qualify as ``spam'' under the definition given..." In short, you can't have "messages with identical content" when you have only one message. Another problem is that "messages" are not "posted" Usenet News articles are referred to as "articles" not "messages" and are posted - e-mail messages are referred to as "messages" and are "sent" Note that the Cauce specification http://www.cauce.org/ of UCE has given rise to a number of terms, such as UBE, and so on, which do a far better job of defining spam than this, and all of these predates this one. It's too bad that people feel compelled to reinvent the wheel all of the time on this issue. Frankly, the only definition that is going to matter (at least in the US) is the one that Congress adopts, and it's likely to be totally unlike any of these proposed ones. Fortunately, we are seeing some movement - witness the Washington State Supreme Court's unamious decision upholding their new anti-spam law. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Allen [mailto:allen@easytospell.com] >Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 2:19 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Bill Moran; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: RE: [OT] Spam from Windriver - how should I react? > > >At 01:09 PM 6/23/2001 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >>All that is required to classify an e-mail transmission as spam > >The only reason I'm commenting here is because care should be taken >when defining spam so that no loop holes are left open and you don't >inadvertently leave yourself standing on a slippery slope. > >The best definition I've seen is: > >http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/ > > >-- >Allen C >mindsieve.com >easytospell.com >packetmonkeys.com > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001d01c0fc82$dec25680$1401a8c0>